Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021:

INTEGRATING INNOVATION WITH

PRESERVATIONHistoric Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2017

www.georgiashpo.org

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021:

INTEGRATING INNOVATION WITH

PRESERVATION

Historic Preservation DivisionGeorgia Department of Natural Resources

2017www.georgiashpo.org

JEWETT CENTER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION2610 GA HWY 155, SWSTOCKBRIDGE, GEORGIA 30281

770.389.7844

Note: The quotations throughout were taken from responses to the 2017-2021 Georgia State

Historic Preservation Plan public input survey conducted in 2015.

CreditsEditor:Jennifer Dixon

Principal Authors: Jennifer DixonWilliam Hover

Layout and Design: New South Associates, Inc.

Photography: HPD staff unless otherwise noted

Historic Preservation Planning Team: David CrassJennifer DixonWilliam HoverBryan Tucker

With Contributions From:

Allison Asbrock

Rachel Black

Stephanie Cherry-Farmer

David Crass

Barbara Fisher

Jeff Harrison

Melissa Jest

Rachel Rice

Lynn Speno

Bryan Tucker

This publication has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the Historic Preservation Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Interior, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products or consultants constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you desire more information, write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service,

1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240.

Acknowledgments

Department of Natural ResourcesMark Williams, Commissioner

Historic Preservation DivisionDavid Crass, Director

Allison Asbrock, Jennifer Bedell, Rachel Black, Aimee Bouzigard,

Stephanie Cherry-Farmer, Jennifer Dixon, Kim Feagler, Raluca

Filimon, Barbara Fisher, Jeff Harrison, Josh Headlee, William

Hover, Laura Beth Ingle, Melissa Jest, Sarah Love, Dona McKenzie,

Molly McLamb, Susan Pursell, Rachel Rice, Meg Richardson,

Leslie Spencer, Lynn Speno, Bryan Tucker, Katie Twomey, Debbie

Wallsmith, Jennifer Weber

Table of ContentsTerminology i

Section I: Action Plan 1

Introduction 2

Accomplishments from the Previous Plan 3

Conclusion 15

A Snapshot of Georgia 16

Population Trends 17

Housing Trends 19

Transportation Trends 23

Agricultural Trends 24

Tourism Trends 25

Government Trends 29

Natural Hazards and Disaster Response Trends 34

Growth and Development Strategies 35

Partnerships 37

Conclusion 38

Mission, Vision, and Goals 40

A Vision for Historic Preservation in Georgia 40

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 41

Section II: Georgia’s Historic and Archaeological Resources 51

Defining Historic Properties 52

What Makes a Property “Historic?” 52

How Do We Decide What is Historic? 53

How Are Properties Determined to Be Historic? 55

Conclusion 55

Georgia’s Historic Resources 56

Buildings 56

Structures 59

Objects 59

Sites 59

Historic Districts 61

African American 61

Conclusion 63

Georgia’s Archaeological Resources 64

Precontact Periods 65

Historic Periods 69

Conclusion 71

Historic Properties in Georgia 72

How Many Historic Properties Are in Georgia? 72

Why Do the Numbers of Historic Properties Change? 73

Why Are More Historic Properties Identified? 73

How Many Historic Properties Have Been Lost? 74

What’s on the Horizon in Terms of “New” Historic Properties? 75

Conclusion 77

Section III: The Planning Process 79

Developing the Plan 80

Public Participation 81

Conclusion 88

References Consulted 91

Terminology

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

ii

ABPP American Battlefield Protection Program

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADID Atlanta Downtown Improvement District

AGO America’s Great Outdoors

ARC Atlanta Regional Commission

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

BP Before Present

BRT Bus Rapid Transit

CAP Central Atlanta Progress

CDBG Community Development Block Grant

CLG Certified Local Government

DDA Downtown Development Association

ER Environmental Review

ESF Emergency Support Fund

FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GA State Georgia State University

GAAHPN Georgia African American Historic Preservation Network

GDA Georgia Downtown Association

GDAg Georgia Department of Agriculture

GDCA Georgia Department of Community Affairs

GDEcD Georgia Department of Economic Development

GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation

GEFA Georgia Environmental Finance Authority

GEMA Georgia Emergency Management Agency

GEMC Georgia Electric Membership Corporation

GEPA Georgia Environmental Policy Act

GFBF Georgia Farm Bureau Federation

GFC Georgia Forestry Commission

GIS Geographic Information System

GLCP Georgia Land Conservation Program

GLED Georgia Law Enforcement Division

GMA Georgia Municipal Association

GMCA Georgia Municipal Cemetery Association

GNAHRGIS Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources GIS

GNFA Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agricenter

GPR Ground Penetrating Radar

GPRHSD Georgia Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites Division

GRHP Georgia Register of Historic Places

GSU Georgia Southern University

GTC Georgia Transmission Corporation

iii

GTHP Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation

GWRD Georgia Wildlife Resources Division

HB House Bill

HOPE Hands-On Preservation Experience

HPC Historic Preservation Commission

HPD Historic Preservation Division

HPF Historic Preservation Fund

HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development

ITOS Information Technology and Outreach Services

KSU Kennesaw State University

LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCPTT National Center for Preservation Technology and Training

NCSHPO National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers

NHA National Heritage Area

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPI National Preservation Institute

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Natural Resource Inventory

NRT National Recreation Trail

NTHP National Trust for Historic Preservation

PA Programmatic Agreement

PBS Public Broadcasting Service

PDF Portable Document Format

POW Prisoner of War

REIT Real Estate Investment Trust

RUS Rural Utility Service

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SB Senate Bill

SCAD Savannah College of Art and Design

SEAC Southeastern Archaeological Conference

SERO Southeast Regional Office

SGA Society for Georgia Archaeology

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

TBAG To Bridge a Gap

TCP Traditional Cultural Place

TIMO Timber Investment Management Organization

TPD Tourism Product Development

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UGA University of Georgia

US United States

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USC University of South Carolina

USDA US Department of Agriculture

USFS US Forest Service

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

Section I: Action Plan

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Introduction

Georgia has a strong preservation constituency that works in partnership to protect our irreplaceable historic places.

Like all of the US, Georgia faces challenging economic realities that continue to have an impact on the lives of its

citizens. Preservationists need to continue to assess where we are, adjust our course, evaluate the choices we have

made, and envision a better future. We need to reaffirm our vision of community, shared experiences, and shared

heritage. It is a vision that blends treasuring our past with developing a new course for the future. It is a vision that

includes people from all walks of life, joining forces to protect and use historic places in order to make Georgia a

better place to live, work, and play.

Planning for our future must include planning for the preservation and protection of our heritage. Historic places

and cultural patterns tell the story of who we are, those who came before us, and who we are becoming. Historic

places are tangible evidence of Georgia’s history. They give us a sense of place and a compelling reason to protect

our history and share it with others. Historic places enhance the quality of people’s lives, providing a continuous

source of information about the past. They can be studied, interpreted, rehabilitated, and used to benefit present

and future generations of Georgians and visitors to our state. Historic preservation also creates much-needed

jobs and has positive benefits for the environment by utilizing existing resources, thereby contributing to a more

sustainable future.

3

For preservation to continue to be a sustainable movement, we must continue to innovate. Increasingly, in order to

involve younger generations, preservationists are turning to technology. With newer generations growing up with

computers, the use of the Internet is now an everyday affair. Additionally, preservation organizations are beginning

to see these younger generations entering the workforce and bringing fresh ideas, fresh eyes, and fresh energy to

the often-described “old” or “tired” preservation movement. Furthermore, younger employees are willing to try new

technologies on old techniques, introducing new software, systems, and processes into the existing procedures.

Evolving workplaces translate to new workspaces, new work habits, and new work concepts. All of this translates to

the necessary and continuing integration of innovation both for, and within, the preservation movement.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021: Integrating Innovation with Preservation is the guiding document

for the state historic preservation program administered by the Historic Preservation Division (HPD) of the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). Our state plan covers the years 2017 through 2021. It follows the previous

plan, Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2012-2016: Partnering for Preservation, and builds on its firm foundations.

Accomplishments from the Previous Plan

For the last five years, the goals and objectives of Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2012-

2016: Partnering for Preservation, served as a focus for many activities and initiatives that resulted

in significant accomplishments. These accomplishments were made while facing economic

challenges and many changes within HPD, including retirements, new hires, and a new office

building, which required a rather complicated move. These challenges required a re-focusing

of efforts while introducing the benefit of a new and fresh take on existing preservation issues.

Many of the accomplishments highlighted here (and keyed to the goals and objectives from the

previous plan) were possible because of the fresh perspective of new employees and of course,

the contributions of partners:

Archaeology

◆ Originally commencing in the spring of 2010, Georgia Southern University (GSU) continued archaeological

investigations at Camp Lawton, a Civil War prisoner of war (POW) camp located in Magnolia Springs State

(Left) The partnership with Georgia Southern University at Camp Lawton allows the opportunity for students to conduct research and gain hands-on experience in the field. (Right) Camera crews followed researchers at Camp Lawton in 2013, filming an episode of PBS’s Time Team America

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“A sense of place makes you want to put down roots and makes it worth putting them down. Georgia has so many fascinating stories still recorded in the environment, but they are quickly disappearing.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

4

Park and on adjacent lands managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Since then, archaeologists

have uncovered remnants of the original stockade wall, as well as evidence of individual camp sites where the

prisoners lived. Collaborative excavations at Camp Lawton were featured in a 2013 episode of PBS Time Team

America and provided additional material for the Magnolia Springs History Center, which opened in October

2014. HPD continues to partner with Georgia Parks, Recreation, and Historic Sites Division (GPRHSD) to develop

new exhibits for the History Center as ongoing archaeological research yields additional results (1.A.4, 2.A.2,

2.B.1, 2.B.3).

◆ Initiated in 2004, archaeologists from the University of Kentucky continued field school

investigations on Sapelo Island, which is managed primarily by GDNR. Ongoing excavations

are investigating a large Mission Period Guale Indian site which may be the remains of the

San Joseph de Sapala Mission. The possible location of the mission was rediscovered during

the 2011 field season and work during subsequent field schools continues this research.

Both Guales and Spanish took refuge at Santa Josef after the primary mission in Georgia,

Santa Catalina de Guale, was raided by approximately 300 Westo Indians under the sub rosa

leadership of English based in Charles Town, South Carolina (1.A.4, 2.A.2, 2.B.1, 2.B.3).

◆ In 2013, GDNR and New South Associates, Inc. conducted research at McLemore Cove, in

Walker County, in order to assess the potential impact of American Civil War reenactments on

historic sites. These investigations were carried out in conjunction with the 150th anniversary

reenactment of the Battle of Chickamauga, which was held in September 2013 in McLemore Cove. With about

5,000 participants, the event was one of the largest reenactment events in the southeast to date. While prior

anecdotal evidence suggested that reenactments could be detrimental to the integrity of historic sites, no

systemic studies had been employed to investigate the actual effects. This research provided evidence that a

large-scale Civil War reenactment does have the potential to negatively impact historic resources through the

introduction of replica materials, introduction of new features (fire pits, tent rings, perhaps privies, etc.), and

potential to damage aboveground features and landscape. HPD disseminated these results at conferences and

professional meetings and will be submitting a manuscript for inclusion in peer reviewed journals to drive future

stewardship efforts for battlefield sites (1.A.4, 2.A.2)

◆ Starting in 2013, HPD partnered with UGA’s Center for Archaeological Sciences to

conduct an archaeological field school on Ossabaw Island in Chatham County, south of

Savannah. Each year, a collaborative project is developed that focuses on an endangered

archaeological site with a comprehensive research agenda. To date, the excavations have

occurred on a variety of endangered sites ranging from 4,000-year-old campsites to a

plantation site that dates to the late 18th century (1.A.4, 2.A.2, 2.B.1, 2.B.3).

◆ Archaeologists continued to build GDNR’s relationship with federally-recognized

Native American tribes with traditional homelands in Georgia. Representatives from the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation participated in the University of South Carolina (USC) field

school at Etowah Indian Mounds Historic Site, in 2013, as well as the UGA archaeological

field school on Ossabaw Island, in 2014 and 2015. HPD worked closely with both the

Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to repatriate Native

American remains from Ossabaw Island and the New Echota Historic Site. In 2016, HPD

HPD and UGA host public archaeology days as part of summer field schools, offering citizens an opportunity to learn about archaeology in a hands-on way.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“I love cultural heritage, old buildings and rural landscapes especially. I want to help preserve these memories and beautiful resources of my adopted state.”

5

attended the To Bridge a Gap (TBAG) conference. Sponsored by a different tribe each year, TBAG was originally

organized to facilitate government-to-government relationships between the US Forest Service (USFS) and

federally-recognized Native American groups. In the last sixteen years, TBAG has grown to include other federal

and state agencies(2.B.4).

◆ During the summer of 2013, Dr. Adam King, along with a field school from the South Carolina Institute of

Archaeology and Anthropology, USC, carried out archaeological investigations at the Etowah Indian Mounds

State Park, a GDNR-managed property. Etowah is a Mississippian mound site occupied during three distinct

phases between the years AD 1000 and 1550. King noted that Etowah not only provides the opportunity to

investigate community creation, but also how the built environment and the social landscape is changed over

time. Utilizing multiple geophysical techniques, in conjunction with limited archaeological testing, Dr. King

compared how architectural types at Etowah, including single-set post houses and wall trench buildings, are

reflected in Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) anomalies. He explored social relationships as represented through

observed patterning and distribution of these architectural types. In addition, King carried out deeper exploration

of unique architectural signatures revealed in earlier magnetic surveys. He also explored the perimeter of Etowah

Indian Mounds State Park both looking for evidence of settlement beyond the known extent of the site and to

better understand the broader landscape context (1.A.4, 2.A.2, 2.B.1, 2.B.3).

◆ Within the past four years, members of HPD’s Archaeology, Outreach, and

Education Section developed training sessions for sister divisions of GDNR.

In 2012, Director David Crass presented a training seminar to the GDNR Law

Enforcement Division (LED) that covered the protection of archaeological

resources on state lands, water bottoms, and private lands, in addition to

the protection of burials and related burial items. In 2014, a similar seminar

was presented to GLED with an additional section familiarizing members of

GLED with the Georgia Archaeological Site Form. In 2016, archaeologists and

historians from HPD partnered with GPRHSD to conduct training covering an

introduction to archaeology, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), burial

and cemetery laws and preservation, proper curation of archaeological and

historic collections, and state laws and processes requiring historic resource

review by HPD (2.B.3).

◆ Through a Department of Defense Legacy project (#12-506), A Historic Context

of the Turpentine (Naval Stores) Industry in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains of

Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, prepared by Brian Greer, Dwight Kirkland,

and Martin Healey, was finalized in 2013. The objective was to provide federal

cultural resource managers with guidelines for identifying archaeological

signatures of naval stores sites and a means of assessment that can be used in

making recommendations under Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), as well as to suggest program alternatives or standard

treatments for these resources in order to streamline compliance with the

NHPA (2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.B.3).

◆ In 2016, HPD assisted with the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC)

held in October in Athens, Clarke County. With 40 percent more abstracts than

any previous conference, HPD developed the programming and aided in the

creation of the first mobile application for scheduling and programming used

at a SEAC (2.A).

In 2016, the Historic Preservation Division conducted a training session regarding protection of our cultural resources for cadets of the GDNR Law Enforcement Division.

In assisting with the 2016 SEAC, in Athens, HPD met with the public to discuss archaeology and offer technical assistance.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

6

Environmental Review (ER)

◆ The ER program saw a lot of turn over starting in 2014 as two stalwarts in the program, with a combined 28 years

of service, retired, and two others moved onto different opportunities. With these changes, three new staff were

hired within a span of six months from 2014 to 2015.

◆ The State Stewardship program, which requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned and/or state-

administered historic properties, continues as an important preservation tool. Of particular note under this

program is the historic preservation initiative of the Board of Regents, University System of Georgia, which in the

past five years had four additional campuses starting or completing preservation plans as part of the university

system’s master planning process (1.A.1, 1.A.4, 1.B.4, 1.B.6, 1.B.7, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.A.2, 2.B.3).

◆ The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) recently

completed its final year of funding, while the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, introduced in

2015, has aided in continuing the partnership between Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and HPD

for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects (1.B.1, 1.C.3, 2.B.3).

◆ HPD continued to work closely with federal, state, and local agencies to ensure the successful implementation

of federal stimulus projects with streamlined Section 106 reviews. Multiple new programmatic agreements (PAs)

were implemented to aid in the streamlined process for projects within the past five years such as disaster

relief through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reservoir

operations, the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, FHWA projects involving historic streetcar archaeological

sites, replacement of historic wooden trestle railroad bridges which require US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

permits, and many individual project PAs. HPD also began, or continued participation in, many nationwide

PAs, such as the National Park Service’s (NPS) American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) agreement, US

Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Utility Service’s (RUS) energy efficiency loan program, and Federal

Communications Commission’s (FCC) positive train control program comment (1.B.7, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.B.2, 2.B.3).

◆ Consultation continued with the Army and the Navy for the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) closures

of Fort McPherson in Atlanta and the Navy Supply School in Athens. Recently, a major studio purchased the

majority of Fort McPherson, which included virtually all of the historic resources. HPD anticipates continued and

increased consultation in order to ensure projects are carried out in accordance with the covenants (1.B.2, 1.B.7,

1.C.3, 2.A.1).

◆ Consultation continued with sister GDNR agencies, in particular those that manage historic resources. Hardman

Farm, near Helen in White County, was placed under state stewardship in the 1990s, and HPD has aided GPRHSD

with the installation of solar panels, parking, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, store

preservation, conservation of finishes, and other projects. Sweetwater Creek mill ruins, near Lithia Springs in

Douglas County, required stabilization, and HPD aided GPRHSD by recommending treatment plans, reviewing

stabilization plans, and providing technical assistance, as well as interpretation assistance (1.B.4, 1.B.7, 2.A.1, 2.A.2,

2.B.2, 2.B.3).

◆ In 2015, the ER program expanded its use of technology with a new fillable PDF application and a new, more

flexible and sustainable database to track ER projects. The new application is more user-friendly and the new

database allows for easier and quicker access to project information. The new database system is the first step in

moving toward an all-digital submission process and, in the near future, will also have reporting capabilities. The

7

program also completely reorganized the ER portion of HPD’s website to make finding information and reaching

out to the right person easier (1.A.2).

◆ HPD has reinvigorated training for the ER program within the past five years, sending staff to National Preservation

Institute (NPI), NPS, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) training, along with regional and

National Council of State Historic Preservation Offices’ (NCSHPO) meetings. Multiple site visits for various projects

were also completed throughout the past five years, including NPS, FHWA, and FCC

projects, allowing reviewers a more complete understanding of projects. (1.A.1, 1.A.2,

1.A.5, 2.A.1, 2.B.1, 2.B.3, 2.B.4).

◆ Concurrent with staff education, HPD has reinvigorated training for the public and

consultants involved in the ER process within the past five years, presenting at US

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), FCC, and NPS training

sessions, along with more local Historic Preservation Commissions (HPCs) and similar

organization trainings (1.A.2, 1.B.1, 1.B.4, 1.B.5, 1.B.6, 1.B.7, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.B.1, 2.B.2, 2.B.3,

2.B.4).

Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties

◆ Georgia remains one of the highest-ranked states in the number of listings in the NRHP. In September 2011,

Georgia had 2,051 NRHP listings with 75,791 contributing resources. By September 2016, Georgia NRHP listings

increased to 2,133 with 82,601 contributing resources. Highlights of this past planning cycle included updates

and expansions to several large historic districts listed more than 20 years ago, such as Ansley Park in Atlanta

and Shirley Hills in Macon, as well as the listing of Utoy Cemetery, one of the very few extant resources in Atlanta

dating to the early 19th century (1.B.3, 1.B.6, 2.A, 2.B).

The Shirley Hills Historic District in Macon, originally listed in the National Register in 1989, was expanded and updated in 2014.

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?Getting more people involved in restoring old buildings even if used for new purposes. Having local elected officials understand the value of preservation.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

8

◆ During the past five years, the number of surveyed historic buildings in

HPD’s computerized database increased from just over 94,100 to over 107,200.

This increase was due in large measure to the continuation of the innovative

“FindIt” field survey partnership with Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC) (an

electrical utility company) and the Center for Community Design and Preservation

at the University of Georgia’s (UGA) School of Environmental Design. As part of its

Section 106 compliance activities under USDA, GTC provides funding for the field

survey program. Surveys are carried out by the Center for Community Design

and Preservation and survey data is recorded in HPD’s web-based geographical

information system known as Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic

Resources Geographic Information System (GNAHRGIS) (1.A.2, 2.B).

◆ HPD prioritized historic resources survey as an eligible activity for Historic

Preservation Fund (HPF) grant support, enabling survey in many communities that

had not undertaken one in decades. Expanded guidance materials completed in

2015, including a revised Georgia Historic Resources Survey Manual and GNAHRGIS

training program, have helped to facilitate survey and standardized deliverables

(1.A.2, 2.B).

◆ Enhancements to GNAHRGIS continue to take full advantage of new database

and mapping capabilities. Enhancements during the past five years include:

improved resurveying capabilities; expanded accessibility along with introducing

the ability to export reports on surveyed data; expanded data categories; improved

search capabilities; and retention of “legacy” survey data in a readily accessible

“archive” when previously surveyed properties are resurveyed. Additionally, a

system for mapping historic districts was implemented which, for the first time,

transitions GNAHRGIS from an entirely point-based system to one that supports

points and polygons. The ongoing partnership between HPD, GDOT’s Offices

of Environmental Services, and Information Technology and Outreach Services

(ITOS) of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at UGA continues to oversee and

implement the system (1.A.2).

◆ The Garden Club of Georgia’s Historic Landscape Initiative continued through

a partnership between the Garden Club of Georgia, HPD, Cherokee Garden

Library at the Atlanta History Center, NPS’ Southeast Regional Office (SERO), and

Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD) to identify the state’s

historic landscapes. The grant program awards annual grants for the preservation

of the state’s historic gardens and landscapes. The project priority continues to

be status updates of the gardens and open spaces listed in The Garden History of

Georgia: 1733-1933; however, the identification of historic cultural landscapes not

listed in the publication has also been encouraged. The Cherokee Garden Library

handles the administration of the landscape initiative and serves as the repository

for all survey data collected. As of May 2016, 182 historic landscapes have been

documented. Out of the approximately 160 gardens and landscapes listed in the

Garden History of Georgia, about 14 remain to be surveyed (1.A.5, 1.C.1, 1.C.3, 2.A.1,

2.A.4).

The unusual geological landforms of Rock City Gardens in Walker County drew curious onlookers beginning in the mid-19th century. In 1932, Frieda and Garnet Carter transformed the site into an elaborately designed rock garden with pathways, bridges, vegetation, overlooks, and visitor facilities. An extensive and innovative roadside advertising campaign between the 1930s and 1960s included slogans painted on the rooftops of over 800 barns along roads and highways enticing the traveling public to “See Rock City.” The site was listed in the National Register in 2014 at the state level of significance in the areas of landscape architecture, architecture, entertainment/recreation, and commerce as a popular tourist attraction and because it is a unique example of a vernacular design-enhanced landscape.

Several “legacy” National Register historic district nominations (dating from the 1960s through the early 1980s) were amended and updated to include early to mid-20th-century buildings so that property owners can take advantage of preservation tax incentives. One of these was the downtown Elberton Commercial Historic District in Elbert County, which was originally listed in the NRHP in 1982. In 2015, the boundary of the district was expanded and the period of significance was updated to 1965.

9

◆ In 2014, HPD, in conjunction with several of our partners, including NPS’ SERO and UGA’s College of Environment

and Design, began a new initiative to broaden our understanding of the landscaped yard of the 18th to 20th

century and better recognize vernacular landscapes in general within the National Register program (1.A.5, 2.B).

◆ Considerable strides were made in the identification and evaluation of Georgia’s mid-20th-century buildings.

Consensus guidelines for documenting and evaluating ranch houses, developed in 2010 by HPD, GDOT, GTC,

and various consultants, are now widely used for National Register nominations, as well as Section 106 reviews,

and have been touted as a national model for evaluation. Building off of the mid-

20th-century housing in DeKalb County study completed by HPD and students at

Georgia State University (GA State) in 2010, interest in National Register nominations

for mid-20th-century neighborhoods in that county and the surrounding area have

significantly increased. The Northwoods Historic District (885 properties) and the

Lindridge-Martin Manor Historic District (224 properties) were listed in 2014 and

2015, respectively, and multiple other nominations are currently in progress (1.A.1,

1.B.6).

◆ As part of ongoing efforts to develop methods for analyzing commercial resources dating to the mid-20th century and forward, the City of Atlanta, in partnership with Central Atlanta Progress (CAP) and Atlanta Downtown Improvement District (ADID), secured a HPF grant to develop a context study for downtown Atlanta resources built between 1945 and 1990. The city underwent unprecedented development during this time period. As these resources become historic, an informed analysis of their significance within a local and regional context was deemed necessary to understand their importance and accurately assess preservation opportunities and challenges (1.A.1, 1.B.6, 2.A, 2.B.2, 2.B.3).

◆ Recognizing that recent progressive guidelines and contexts, such as those developed for the ranch house, provide useful models for substantial expansion of the 1991 Georgia’s Living Places: Historic Houses and their Landscaped Settings, initial steps toward further development of this context were taken. Methods were developed and opportunities for funding are being investigated to expand this guide that serves as the foundation for residential building types and styles identification in Georgia (1.A.1, 1.C).

◆ Throughout the last five years, Georgia is becoming integral in the Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) discussion happening nationwide as exemplified by the recent NRHP nomination sponsored by GDOT for a boundary expansion of the NRHP-listed New Echota near Calhoun in Gordon County. This nomination will be the state’s

first to explore a place’s traditional cultural significance (2.A.3, 2.B.4).

Preservation Grants and Tax Incentives ◆ Georgia continued to be a leader in promoting federal and state preservation tax incentives. With the improving

economy, Georgia has seen a regular increase of new tax projects in the last few years and ranks among the top 12 states in the number of certified projects annually (1.B.3, 1.B.4, 1.B.6, 2.A.3).

◆ In the state fiscal years covered by the previous plan (2012 through 2016), tax incentive program activity in Georgia included completion of 233 projects. The economic impact of these projects includes direct private investment of nearly $595 million, creating or supporting over 17,000 jobs, and backing personal income earnings of over $446 million (1.B.3, 1.B.4, 1.B.6, 2.A.3).

◆ In May 2015, Georgia’s General Assembly made changes to the State Income Tax Credit for Rehabilitated Historic Property. House Bill (HB) 308 created two additional categories of projects, subject to an annual cap, and allowed for the sale of earned tax credits. The amended law went into effect January 2016 for projects that are completed

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Continue my role on the preservation commission, be involved in training to be able to make informed decisions for the community.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

10

after January 1, 2017. It spurred great interest in the tax credit programs for larger projects and resulted in an increase in the number of applications. HB 308 is in effect through 2021, at which time it is hoped that the amendment will prove successful and be extended for at least five additional years (1.B.3, 1.B.4, 1.B.6, 2.A.3, 2.B.2).

◆ In an effort to promote the new state tax credit, as well as Georgia’s other tax incentives programs, HPD averaged

at least 10 presentations a year within the past five years, to homeowner associations, local historic preservation

commissions, local governments, non-profits, and real estate associations (1.A.5).

◆ In 2015, the tax incentives program expanded its use of technology with a new fillable PDF application and a

new, more flexible and sustainable database to track tax incentive projects. The new application is more user-

friendly and the new database allows for easier and quicker access to project information. The new database

system is the first step in moving toward electronic submissions and, in the near future, will also have reporting

capabilities (1.A.2).

Originally a school, and now used as city hall in Locust Grove, Henry County, this is an excellent example of the preservation and adaptive use of a historic resource.

Ponce City Market, a historic Sears & Roebuck warehouse and shipping facility was the largest tax project HPD has reviewed to date

11

◆ Georgia’s preservation grants program assisted in the recognition and rehabilitation of

many of Georgia’s historic properties. From 2012 to 2016, 46 projects were awarded

$450,738 through the federal HPF Grant Program. The HPF grant program funds all

types of planning, survey/National Register, information/education, and site-specific

predevelopment grants for Georgia’s federally-designated Certified Local Governments

(CLGs). Beginning in 2013, development grant projects for properties listed in the NRHP

also became an eligible activity, with the requirement that an eligible property have an

existing planning document, such as a preservation plan, conditions assessment report,

or feasibility study. From 2013 to 2016, eight projects have been awarded $107,260 for

development activities ranging from window/plaster/foundation/water damage repair

to gateway rehabilitation and tree removal within a historic cemetery (1.A.1, 1.A.2, 1.A.3,

1.B.1, 1.B.5, 1.B.6, 1.C.1, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.A.3).

◆ In 2015, one project was awarded $10,000 through the Georgia Heritage Grant Program,

with approximately $60,000 anticipated in awards during 2017. This state-funded

program provides predevelopment and development (bricks-and-mortar) grants to

both local governments and non-profits for the rehabilitation of historic properties

listed in or eligible for listing in the Georgia and NRHP. Since 2009, this grant program

has been funded solely through the revenue generated from the sale of Georgia’s

preservation license plates (1.A.2, 1.B.1, 1.B.7, 1.C.1, 1.C.2, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.B.4).

In 2016, nearly $80,000 in Georgia Heritage Grant funds were awarded to historic preservation projects. The grant is funded solely by funds collected from the sale of Georgia’s historic preservation license plate.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“It’s important to preserve the past so we can learn for the future. A sense of place and time is important in the social development of people.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

12

◆ An additional source of subgrant funding became available in 2015 through NPS’ National Maritime Heritage

Grant Program. Applicants throughout the US applied directly to NPS, while HPD reviewed and administered

the grants within Georgia. The UGA’s Marine Extension Service was the sole Georgia recipient, receiving a 50/50

matching grant of $41,837 to produce a documentary regarding Georgia’s maritime heritage. The project began

in the fall of 2015 and is expected to be completed in 2017 (1.A.3, 1.C.1, 1.C.3, 2.A.1, 2.A.4, 2.B.1).

Preservation Planning

◆ HPD continued to expand the CLG program. Twelve new communities were certified in the past five years, for a statewide total of 95 CLGs as of May 2016. Multiple training opportunities were offered in partnership with a wide variety of state and local partners including the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at UGA, Downtown Development Association (DDA), Georgia Department of Community Affairs (GDCA), Georgia Downtown Association (GDA), Georgia Municipal Association (GMA), and Georgia Alliance of Preservation Commissions in an effort to reach new audiences. CLG grants have also been used in part to facilitate participation by cash-

strapped local governments (1.B.5, 2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.B.3).

◆ Along with the lengthy context study report noted earlier, the City of Atlanta, in partnership with CAP and

ADID used HPF grant money to produce a shorter, less-detailed publication for the general public entitled,

Modern Downtown Atlanta, which looks at the social and architectural history of downtown Atlanta from the

immediate post-World War II era to 1990. Topics in the publication include urban renewal and building of the

“downtown connector,” the influence of the Civil Rights Movement, the influence of John Portman and high-

rise development, the creation of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the development of

Underground Atlanta as a tourist destination, and an in-depth look at several iconic downtown buildings. The

publication is available on HPD’s website (1.A.1, 1.B.6).

◆ Within the past five years, many more county and city governments completed comprehensive plans that

include a historic preservation component, bringing the total well into the hundreds. In addition to this

planning practice, regional commissions across Georgia began developing regionally important resource plans

that include historic and archaeological resources. Regional preservation planners throughout the state have

assisted communities and contributed in these endeavors (2.A.1, 2.A.2, 2.A.3).

Banner photo of the February 2017 issue of Preservation Posts, HPD’s monthly electronic newsletter.

13

Publications and Outreach

◆ Efforts to utilize electronic media in communicating the preservation message expanded during the past five

years. Many preservation organizations have acknowledged the importance of the web as a tool to facilitate

public access to programs and provide up-to-date information on a variety of preservation services. HPD’s

greatest education tool, its website, is updated continuously to reflect the most current preservation information

and to provide better ease-of-access. HPD’s social media footprint, which already included Facebook and Twitter,

expanded with the addition of Flickr and Instagram accounts in the past few years

(1.A.2, 1.B.7, 2.A).

◆ HPD’s monthly electronic newsletter Preservation Posts, featuring articles written by staff

on a variety of preservation subjects, continues to draw new subscribers and positive

reviews. In the beginning of 2016, guest columns on similar topics have been added

to the newsletter line-up bringing additional insight and interest to preservation

in Georgia. These electronic media improvements have enabled HPD to present

preservation-related information to a wider audience (1.A.2, 1.A.5, 1.B.7, 2.A.3).

◆ An annual photo contest to engage members of the public interested in preservation

and to celebrate the state’s historic resources kicked-off in 2012. A different resource theme is selected each year;

so far themes have included State Historic Sites, Mid-Century Modern, downtown Georgia, Civil War, railroads,

theaters, and cemeteries. Since the contest’s inception, photos submitted have been viewed by thousands of

people across each of HPD’s electronic media platforms (1.A.2).

◆ HPD’s African American program continued to contribute to the use of electronic media by utilizing a digital

format to publish the Reflections quarterly newsletter, which began in 2011. The publication has documented

hundreds of Georgia’s African American historic resources since its inception in 2000. Past articles are indexed and

searchable on HPD’s website (1.A.2, 1.B.1, 2.A.3, 2.B.4).

◆ HPD’s African American program made great strides in the past five years

with the preservation of Georgia’s African American resources. As of

July 2016, the Rosenwald school initiative has documented 53 schools

out of 259 known to have been constructed in Georgia between 1915

and 1937, as part of a national effort to preserve these segregation-era

historic resources. Additionally, as of July 2016, the equalization school

initiative has documented 195 schools in 83 counties of the 500 known

to have been built in the state. Furthermore, since 2000, the program has

documented 57 historic African American churches constructed during

the 19th century throughout the state (1.A.1, 1.B.6, 2.A.3, 2.B.4).

◆ The African American program continues to expand its outreach efforts

and partnerships with the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor

Commission, Florida African American Historic Preservation Network, and

the John G. Riley Center/Museum. With the latter two, HPD aided in the

Casting the Net project, which is a two-year initiative that assesses African American museums in multiple states to

identify resources and provide the necessary tools to succeed in missions and programming (1.A, 1.B, 2.A.1, 2.B.4).

◆ The African American program also saw the completion of the Sweet Auburn project within the past five years,

which began in 2011. As a direct result of the initiative, 10 historical wayfinding signs were placed in the Martin

Luther King Jr. Historic District in 2013. The initiative also led to the development of a self-guided walking tour for

the neighborhood and a pilot was completed in 2013 (2.A.3, 2.B.4).

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?Involve local communities in the rehabilitation of sites, educating the younger generation about these sites, and welcoming all hands on participation.

The rehabilitated Acworth Rosenwald School in Acworth, Cobb County. The school now serves as a community center.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

14

◆ HPD’s Outreach program continued to broaden the scope of Georgia’s preservation constituency over the past five

years. As part of this initiative, HPD revised its presentation materials, including banners, posters, and education-

oriented documents. The new presentation and outreach materials were tailored for specific audiences including

children, young adults, community members, and professionals. Additionally, HPD staff increased outreach efforts

by participating in public activities such as the annual Coastfest, Decatur Old House Fair, Weekend for Wildlife, and

GPRHSD Days at the Capitol (1.B.7, 2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.A.4).

◆ HPD’s partnerships increased during the past five years. HPD staff regularly presented a variety of preservation

topics at conferences, meetings, and trainings hosted by GMA, GDCA-Office of Downtown Development, GDEcD,

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), and GDA. Additionally, HPD participated in the Main Street Institute, Georgia

Downtown Conference, and Georgia Downtown Development Authority’s training to reach a broader audience

involved directly with local communities across Georgia. HPD staff also partnered with the Tourism Division of

GDEcD through resource teams that focused on individual communities to provide direct assistance for tourism

development. Due to these efforts, state agencies are able to provide technical assistance in integrating historic

preservation as part of tourism and economic development strategies at the local level (2.B.7, 2.A.1, 2.A.4).

◆ HPD also promoted and assisted more than 20 local, regional, and statewide preservation non-profit organizations

throughout Georgia in the past five years. Many of these organizations, including Athens-Clarke Heritage

Foundation, Inc., DeKalb History Center, and GDA, offer training in conjunction with HPD. Additionally, HPD assisted

preservation non-profits by promoting their events on HPD’s website along with participating in many of the

events. In partnership with Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation (GTHP), HPD co-sponsored successful preservation

summits in 2012, 2013, and 2015, to engage preservation non-profits throughout the state. To continue the efforts

of these preservation non-profits, HPD and GTHP hosted statewide preservation conferences in 2012 and 2013 in

Roswell, Cobb County and Milledgeville, Baldwin County, respectively. These state conferences were successful in

engaging over 400 participants from across the state (1.B.7, 2.A.1, 2.A.4).

◆ In partnership with the Georgia Farm Bureau Federation (GFBF), Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), Georgia

National Fairgrounds and Agricenter (GNFA), Georgia Electric Membership Corporation (GEMC), and Georgia

Department of Agriculture (GDAg), HPD honored 84 additional historic family farms through the Centennial Farm

Program in the past five years, bringing the total number of Centennial Farms in Georgia to 482 as of April 2016

(2.A.1, 2.A.3, 2.A.4).

The Fountain Family Farm, in Taylor County, Georgia was recently honored as a Centennial Farm.

15

Conclusion

Regardless of economic and other challenges, HPD has accomplished much in the past five years, while continuing

to build on past achievements to further preservation in the state. We have adjusted and planned for, studied and

interpreted, and provided assistance in rehabilitating and using historic places throughout the state. From below

ground resources through our archaeological programs to above ground resources through our environmental

review, survey, NRHP, grants, and tax incentives programs; from planning for the future through our preservation

planning initiatives to aiding others in doing the same through our publications and outreach program; HPD will

continue to integrate innovative strategies in preservation these next five years.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

A Snapshot of Georgia

As the 21st century continues to unfold, historic preservation remains an integral part of the social, economic, and

political landscape of the state, as well as the nation. However, in our modern world with an ever-growing list of

distractions, historic preservation runs the risk of being lost among the many quality of life issues that Georgians face.

Recognition of the impact historic preservation and historic properties have within a neighborhood, community, or

region is fundamental to understanding its importance and fostering a preservation ethic.

With gradual improvement in the economy, Georgians’ concern for unplanned growth and urban sprawl has

increased, particularly in metro areas. In contrast, concerns remain about stagnant unemployment, recovery in the

housing market, and flat or declining wages. Rural areas of the state face the added challenges of disinvestment

and declining population. Even in this climate of uncertainty though, historic preservation has the ability to assist

communities in retaining and regaining vibrancy and stability. Georgians can look to historic preservation as a

proven tool to help maintain sustainable communities and bring about sensitive, smart development. Economic

studies continue to indicate the positive impact of historic preservation in job creation, added wealth, and increased

investment in small and large communities alike.

Planning for the preservation of historic properties should take into consideration both the areas of growth in the

state and the areas where growth has not happened. It also must consider the increasing diversity of Georgia’s

residents and ensure that the benefits of preservation are embraced and enjoyed by all. This chapter, therefore,

17

discusses the following trends and their effects on historic preservation: population, housing, transportation,

agriculture, tourism, government, and climate. It also discusses planning and growth strategies that can help to

address these trends and their effects on the preservation of Georgia’s historic and archaeological resources.

Population Trends

Population CharacteristicsGeorgia’s population growth has slowed from the previous decade but continues to

outpace the nation as a whole. The 2015 population was estimated at 10,214,860, an

increase of 5.4 percent from the 2010 census and surpassing the 4.1 percent national

average for population growth. This estimate moves Georgia to eighth among the 50

states in population size. Georgia’s total population is expected to increase to 10,843,753

by 2020.

More than half of Georgia’s population is located within the Atlanta Metropolitan

Statistical Area, with a 2014 estimated regional population of 5,614,323, an increase

of 6.2 percent from the 2010 Census total of 5,268,860. The other five most populous

metropolitan areas in Georgia according to the 2014 estimate are: Augusta-Richmond

County, with an increase of 3.3 percent to 583,632; Savannah-Chatham County, with an

increase of 7.2 percent to 372,708; Columbus in Muscogee County, with an increase of 6.5 percent to 314,005;

Macon-Bibb County, with a decrease of 0.8 percent to 230,450; and Athens-Clarke County, with an increase of 3.4

percent to 199,016.

Georgia’s population also continues to trend younger than the national average, even as it ages. According to the

2014 census estimates, the population of Georgia residents 65 and older is at 12.4 percent, noticeably less than

the national percentage of 14.5 percent. In contrast, Georgia’s population under 18 stands at 24.7 percent, which is

noticeably more than the national average of 23.1 percent.

Given that houses make up 80 percent of Georgia’s historic buildings, the impacts of these population characteristic

changes will impact historic preservation through the need for housing and the aging of the population.

Growth in Urban and Suburban GeorgiaGeorgia’s growth continues to be concentrated in urban and suburban areas of

the state, with almost all of it associated with its fourteen metropolitan statistical

areas covering 81 of Georgia’s 159 counties. This growth is further dominated by the

Atlanta region, which accounts for over 77 percent of overall population increases.

The proportion of recent population growth and development in established areas

indicates that they will continue to grow, but at a much slower pace than that in the

past two decades. Even so, population growth in urban and suburban areas does not

preclude further expansion into undeveloped areas, as more of Georgia transitions

from rural to metropolitan. This potential appears highest for growing counties with

direct major highway routes between Atlanta and nearby metropolitan areas such

as Athens-Clarke County and Gainesville in Hall County.

River Street, in Savannah, Georgia. The Savannah-Chatham County Metropolitan Statistical Area is among the most populated in the state.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“Georgia’s history is a large part of its charm and attractiveness to tourists and economic development prospects. If we lose our history and heritage, we become something altogether different.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

18

Also, while the rate of growth and development maintained before 2008 is not likely

in the foreseeable future, there does appear to be a trend toward densification. This

shift will place additional pressure on existing infrastructure as the need for clean

water, sewers, utilities, new roads, and other transportation options increases, and

will further blur the distinctions between urban and suburban. Demonstrating this

trend, Georgia’s larger cities, including Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, and

Savannah, are experiencing an urban renaissance as they continue to attract people

who desire an urban setting. While basic lifestyle choices factor into this population

shift, part of it is a reaction to the costs of commuting from the suburbs to jobs

in the cities, including vehicle and transportation expense, time consumption, and

mental and physical health considerations.

The urban renaissance is characterized by renewed interest in traditionally developed

and historic areas and the use of existing historic resources. Individuals, couples, and

families are buying and rehabilitating historic housing in intown neighborhoods,

while developers are converting warehouses, mill buildings, and office buildings to

mixed use and residential purposes. A similar movement is occurring in edge cities

or suburban areas where there are efforts to better establish urban cores through

programs such as ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative.

The movement to urban living has, and will continue to have, mixed results

on historic resources. Pedestrian-friendly urbanized areas, including intown

neighborhoods and central business districts, with their higher concentrations of

historic resources, provide opportunities for the preservation of historic structures

and districts. Many homeowners and developers of historic rehabilitation projects

are taking advantage of the Federal Investment Tax Credit, State Income Tax Credit,

and State Preferential Property Tax Assessment programs.

At the same time, historic areas are targets of increased development pressures,

which can result in the loss of historic properties through higher-density or “upscale”

redevelopment. Loss also occurs when the scale or qualities of suburban living are

transferred to historic intown communities causing the unintended consequence

of destruction of the historic character of these communities as new owners tear

down existing housing stock to build larger houses.

Other challenges associated with the movement to more urban living include

gentrification, limited greenspace, and school needs, as many intown school

buildings do not meet current educational facility standards and may even have

been divested and converted to private sector use. Meeting these challenges

often threaten, or are at the expense of, historic buildings, open space, and historic

landscapes.

The Fulton Supply Building, in downtown Atlanta, is an example of a developer converting a historic warehouse building into a residential property.

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“I honestly think the most crucial is the preservation of African American communities which are eroding significantly.”

19

Growth in Rural Georgia Contrasting with the considerable growth experienced by urban counties over the past 20 years, rural Georgia is

generally experiencing a decline in population. Population stagnation or decrease is especially notable in the rural

counties comprising the southwestern and central-eastern part of the state and even includes thirteen of Georgia’s

23 US Census identified micropolitan statistical areas.

These areas face an uncertain future because of lack of employment opportunities and low levels of services. This

decline is especially evident in county seats and market towns that thrived in an era of smaller-scale agriculture.

With little economic activity, historic buildings in these smaller communities face high vacancy rates, deferred

maintenance, neglect, and abandonment. As working-age people continue to leave, housing needs diminish for

larger houses in these areas required by families with children. While older residents may remain, their ability to

maintain larger homes is questionable, leaving additional historic properties at risk. Too often, if any interest is shown

towards these buildings, it is for the salvage potential of their materials or features, such as wood flooring and

fireplace mantles. Illegal attention can also be a risk factor as looters strip historic structures of copper wire and

plumbing or squatters take up residence.

Other rural areas of the state appear to be in a better position. Both northern and coastal rural counties continue

to experience modest growth associated with proximity to the regional economic centers of Atlanta, Chattanooga,

and Savannah along with attractive living environments. Growth in these and other rural areas may also benefit

from Georgia’s military installations, including Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, Kings Bay Naval Base, and Robins Air Force

Base. As these areas have scenic vistas of mountains, marshes, rivers, and shorelines coinciding with their farmsteads,

agricultural fields, and commercial forests, uncontrolled growth and development have a greater potential to impact

the natural and historic rural environment.

Housing Trends

Housing Pattern CharacteristicsGeorgia’s population growth, recovery from the Great Recession, availability of

land in desirable locations, and recent history as an automobile-oriented society is

driving significant change in housing patterns that will have a long-lasting impact.

Lifestyle attitudes have changed, especially in the post-Baby Boomer generations,

about the “American Dream” of homeownership, living in the suburbs, and traveling

long distances to work. Contributing to this change of attitude is experience with

highway and road design principles that funnel traffic to busy routes with few alternatives, traffic congestion,

ever-longer commuting times, evolving views about public transportation, geographical expectations about work

opportunities, desire for nearby or walkable amenities, and greater overall mobility and experience with living in a

variety of community settings. Taken together, these considerations, and others, influence decisions about where

and how to live, in a manner that is generally driving housing development away from outlying expansion to

targeted development and redevelopment closer to urban centers.

The outcome of these influences is a trend towards greater density by filling in existing gaps in already developed

areas, redeveloping properties that have become obsolete, and modifying and/or expanding existing properties.

However, this trend is not universal. Where land availability, cost factors, and market forces provide competitive

opportunities, traditional suburban housing development still occurs. For example, while housing trends in rural

areas are not nearly as dramatic as those in urban and suburban areas, they can have long-lasting effects on

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“Convincing Developers that preservation is a win win.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

20

Georgia’s natural and agrarian landscapes. Rural-area housing continues to be impacted by consistent depopulation

contributing to neglect and vacancy, while agricultural land in desirable areas is subject to suburban developmental

pressure.

Urban Redevelopment Urban housing redevelopment impacting historic resources can generally be divided into three distinct focal points:

intown residential areas, residential conversion in commercial and industrial areas, and replacement of public

housing projects.

Intown residential areas are expected to continue evolving from their original development in the 1920s through

the 1960s as bungalow, American Small House, and ranch house neighborhoods. However, not all of the movement

is market-driven revitalization and growth; there are still neighborhoods suffering from neglect and disinvestment.

At one end of the spectrum are attempts by government agencies and partner organizations to stabilize declining

neighborhoods, which often involves demolition of “blight” properties and abandoned buildings. In these cases,

infill housing on existing vacant lots may not be a preservation issue, especially when HPD is involved with the

development of appropriate design guidelines, such as with CLGs and through the Section 106 process. The

preservation challenge comes from responding to demolitions, which are justified in cases of severe deterioration,

but are often applied more because arbitrary cost factors or economies of scale push a “clean slate” approach to

redevelopment with new construction instead of dealing with individual historic building rehabilitation.

At the other end of the spectrum is redevelopment in desirable neighborhoods. It also includes new infill housing

on available vacant lots, along with demolition and replacement housing. Furthermore, these neighborhoods

commonly are targets for the hybrid type of house, where large additions are built atop and around the original

house. In all these cases, high property values and resale marketing are generally driving a trend for larger homes.

The result is frequently new or altered houses that significantly contrast with the original scale and context of the

neighborhood, even when imitating the existing style. A substantial number of these changes in a historic area can

effectively remove an established neighborhood from consideration as a NRHP historic district as well as threaten

the integrity of an existing NRHP district.

While this trend to “supersize” continues, the slow recovery in

home values from the Great Recession and greater appreciation of

sustainability and energy savings, appear to temper the appeal of

these larger homes and comparatively, has appeared to decrease

the threat to the integrity of existing historic districts, for now.

Residential redevelopment is also expected to continue to increase in

historically commercial and industrial areas as buildings are adapted

to other uses because market forces and changes in technology,

transportation, or other factors have rendered them obsolete

to their original function. Residential adaptive use generally falls

into one of three categories: (1) entire building conversion, which

includes space for shared amenities and possibly limited commercial

space; (2) residential component of a mixed-use development; and

(3) upper-floor residential component of a commercial building.The Southern Railway North Avenue Yards, in Fulton County, have been redeveloped as a business park.

21

The good news for preservation in adaptive use residential redevelopment is that this type of development often

involves participation in tax incentive programs, which requires listing in the NRHP and appropriate rehabilitation

for approval. The projects can also be catalysts for further adaptive use redevelopment and contribute necessary

density to revitalize an area. Every large metropolitan area and numerous smaller metropolitan areas in Georgia have

utilized residential “loft” development in their historic downtowns as a revitalization strategy.

Preservation challenges primarily involve situations where successful rehabilitation

stimulates nearby redevelopment that involves demolition of historic buildings

to take advantage of a “hot” market, over-scaled new construction on available

vacant or parking lots, or replacement construction that encroaches into adjacent

residential neighborhoods, all of which can result in significant change to an area’s

historic character.

Public housing, for the most part, and even considering its significance in the

nation’s history, is considered a failed model due to its unsustainable financial

foundation, with neglect and poor maintenance as consequences, and a societal

perspective of “the projects” as crime incubators, among other reasons. While

a maturing residential housing trend, replacement of public housing is also

expected to continue until all large-scale complexes have been demolished/

replaced and smaller-scale developments renovated. Few large-scale complexes

and high rises built in the initial public housing building era from the 1940s

through the 1970s remain in Georgia.

Generally, public housing built in urban areas originally, and intentionally, contrasted with the adjacent historic built

environment in both style and scale. With their “mixed-income community” replacements, preservation concerns

mainly involve encouraging compatible new design and construction.

Suburban Development and RedevelopmentSuburban development has been gradually shifting from tract development and planned (gated) communities with

clubhouse amenities to residential development more integrated with nearby work, shopping, and recreational/

entertainment opportunities. This movement is seen in older, closer-in suburban areas where divested mid-20th-

century large-area, manufacturing sites, and sub-performing shopping malls are being converted to mixed-use

developments utilizing varying levels of demolition, rehabilitation, and new construction, while incorporating a

traditional town center. The same concept is also seen in areas transitioning from rural to suburban. This trend can

also be seen in edge city areas where high-density housing is being added in the vicinity of existing commercial,

office, and shopping development to better integrate with nearby suburban neighborhoods. In the Atlanta

suburban area, this model is supported by the ARC’s Livable Centers Initiative.

Housing, in the cases involving redevelopment, typically includes apartment buildings, townhouses, and single-

family houses that provide a scaled transition from denser development at the town center core to adjacent existing

neighborhoods.

Preservation concerns for suburban redevelopment are similar to that for urban redevelopment in that new

construction on the edges can spill over into adjacent historic neighborhoods. While it can include demolition

and replacement, of particular interest may be concerns about neo-traditional housing styles, such as modern

An apartment complex built at the edge of Macon’s Ingleside National Register Historic District is an example of development spilling into or encroaching on an established historic district.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

22

versions of the Craftsman style, encroaching into existing neighborhoods and diminishing the integrity of recent-

past historic districts primarily composed of ranch houses, split-level houses, and their derivatives.

Rural Development Rural housing development is primarily concentrated in gap areas between major population centers, where

diminishing farmlands and open spaces are subject to suburban development pressure and settings with scenic

beauty or recreational opportunities are marketed for vacation or retirement homes. Juxtaposed with these

locations are rural areas challenged by population stagnation or decline where there is little, if any, development

opportunity. However, any of these scenarios can result in threat or loss of historic resources. Where there is

impending development, historic farmhouses and agricultural buildings are likely destined for demolition to clear

sites for infrastructure and platting; where there is no development interest, rural structures are threatened by

demolition through neglect.

As preservation advocacy organizations of influential scale do not yet exist for rural resources, the preservation

challenge is primarily one of establishing a preservation ethic in rural communities and local governments. This

ethic will need to promote an awareness of rural historic character, and convey its importance, to help guide present

planning and future development so that some context of the rural past is retained, including preserving at least

some part of its built environment.

Rehabilitation Issues Aside from the larger considerations of development that threaten historic resources with demolition or loss of

integrity, the continued preservation of historic homes is complicated by trends that are not new but continue

to receive attention. These trends include misconceptions about energy efficiency and “upgrading” of historic

materials. Frequently, “drafty” historic wood windows are replaced with vinyl assemblies and plaster walls are

removed to enable the addition of insulation throughout a house. Historic features are sometimes perceived as

A historic split-level house in DeKalb County, Georgia.

23

being wastes of time and money rather than worthy of proper repair for their inherent durability and historical value.

Wide advertising of new “maintenance-free” and super-efficient building products promote this perception. Further,

there is the lack of practitioners of traditional building trades and skills able to repair historic features. As modern

building techniques and materials have resulted in a different set of standard construction skills, the teaching and

application of traditional skills has fallen by the wayside. If a homeowner or contractor cannot easily locate skilled

craftsmen, it should be expected that easier, and perhaps inappropriate, methods of renovation will be undertaken.

Fortunately, there is continuing movement to address these issues. Technical information has been developed by NPS

that refutes marketing claims of manufacturers providing replacement products for historic materials and features

and there are training programs focusing on traditional building skills, including involvement of disadvantaged

youth, such as NPS’ Hands-On Preservation Experience (HOPE) crews, or the programs at the Center for Traditional

Crafts at Savannah Technical College. The challenge is to build a critical mass of information, training, and career

opportunities so that the concepts of preservation and sustainability become more integrated into the culture to

the extent that it supports a renaissance in craftsmanship and trades work.

Transportation Trends

Transportation Enhancements With the end of SAFETEA-LU, the majority of Federal funding remaining continues to focus in areas that are either

in historic districts or near resources that are eligible for listing in the NRHP in Georgia. With the introduction of the

FAST Act in December 2015, new opportunities are arising between FHWA, GDOT, and HPD regarding mutually

beneficial projects. An inter-agency agreement between HPD and

GDOT has been revised to include agreed-to solutions to streamline

federally-funded transportation projects, additional funding for

HPD staff working solely on federal transportation projects, and

special projects, which it is hoped will create new opportunities for

transportation enhancements.

Local Transportation Alternatives While fuel price spikes often raise an awareness of the need for

alternatives to automobile transportation, a more important driver of

alternatives is ever-increasing traffic congestion in Atlanta and other

large metropolitan areas. Serious as these concerns are though, many

local transportation alternative intitiatives have only just begun to

reach the critical mass to significantly address transportation issues.

The problem is further exacerbated by the long-term planning and

financial commitment required to build and maintain transportation

infrastructure. As a result, the default preference of users and the

overwhelming response to transportation issues remains road

construction. Even so, and considering the ability to make road

infrastructure enhancements is not limitless, discussion and conceptual

planning continues and small-scale alternative transportation projects

are being put into place. A Streetscape Transportation Project in Downtown Nashville, Georgia.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

24

In Georgia, alternative transportation plans and projects are primarily associated with the Atlanta metropolitan area

and focus on providing service in three areas – local connectivity, metropolitan connectivity, and inter-regional

connectivity. Of these, inter-regional connectivity is furthest from development, although conceptual planning

has been initiated for commuter rail connecting the MARTA system with Athens and Macon, along with providing

additional connections within existing commuter rail. Metropolitan connectivity continues to improve, primarily

through greater coordination of adjacent county Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems with MARTA. This shift reflects a

slowly changing attitude – politically and socially – about the necessity of mass transit. Work completed or in progress

to make mass transit more efficient includes dedicated bus or carpool lanes, along with highway entry/exit ramps,

and restructuring MARTA’s financial model to provide greater flexibility in allocating its funding. All metropolitan

Atlanta mass transit systems will need to adjust to meet expanding service needs, but expansion of MARTA’s heavy

rail system, last extended in 2000, will be limited. More likely to be constructed are light rail

systems for local connectivity, such as the Downtown Loop Atlanta Streetcar that went into

service in 2014 and travels through the Fairlie-Poplar, Sweet Auburn, and Edgewood historic

districts. Plans in place call for its expansion in all directions to the Atlanta Beltline, which is

a multi-use trail (pedestrian, bicycle, light rail) utilizing abandoned rail spur line right-of-way

that will eventually encircle the entire metro-Atlanta area. Studies have also been completed

for developing light rail to connect select employment centers with existing MARTA stations.

Mass transit supporting local connectivity reinforces the traditional development pattern of

dense, walkable, commercial, and residential districts. However, the development of these

types of systems could be a double-edged sword for historic structures, reinvigorating historic

districts and areas developed before the post-World War II rise of the automobile and its effect

on land planning and use. Alternatively, land values in these areas could rise to the point that

larger structures would replace historic buildings.

Agricultural Trends

Agriculture remains Georgia’s largest industry, with the state’s annual gross farm income over

$9.2 billion. Its wide crop diversification includes cotton, peanuts, grains, corn, hay, soybeans,

market vegetables, onions, pecans, peaches, and blueberries along with livestock production

primarily centered on poultry. Of these, poultry, cotton, and peanuts are the state’s chief

agricultural products, with blueberries on the rise.

USDA 2015 and Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) 2012 statistics indicate Georgia has

40,500 farm operations covering 9.3 million acres, continuing a downward trend from

42,257 farms/9.6 million acres in 2012 and 47,846 farms/10.1 million acres in 2007. While

the conversion of farmland to developed use is slowing, from approximately 129,000 acres/

year in the period from 1997 to 2007 to approximately 21,000 acres/year in the period from

2007 to 2012, it continues to threaten cultural landscapes and rural historic resources already

significantly diminished when looking from a longer perspective: in 1950, Georgia had

198,191 farms/25.7 million acres comprising 68.8 percent of the state; in 1982, there were

49,630 farms/12.3 million acres comprising 33.1 percent. Using 2015 statistics, farms now

make up less than 25 percent of the state.

A view from the pecan orchard at Southern Pecan Orchards, in Macon. Southern Pecan Orchards is a Georgia Centennial Farm, a program that helps to document and commemorate Georgia’s agricultural heritage.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“Because I care about our history and want to see this very interesting aspect of Georgia alive so future generations can see where we came from and why we are the way we are today. In other words, learn from experience.”

25

Forestry and forest-related industry also contributes substantially to Georgia’s economy, providing over 108,000

jobs and $5.4 billion in payroll. Forestry’s importance can also be viewed from a strictly land-use perspective: of

the state’s approximately 37 million acres of land, about 24.8 million acres are forest land and, of that, 24.1 million

acres are potentially available for timber production. Although there is some year-to-year fluctuation in available

acreage, forestry has a long trend of stability dating back to the 1970s as naturally regenerated forests went through

a conversion to planted and managed timber stands. However, this stability has the side effect of replacing forests

lost to development with land converted from agriculture use.

A different type of loss threatens historic and cultural resources in acreage used for timber production. This land is

typically not owner-occupied and under current business models, ownership is frequently in the form of Timber

Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs). In a non-engaged,

absentee-owner scenario where there likely is little, if any, awareness of any extant historic resources, combined

with the process used for replanting after timber harvesting, the survival prospects of historic properties in timber

production areas are grim.

The extensive and continuing loss of farms, and the historical record they represent, underlines the necessity of

recognizing their importance as a starting point for preservation efforts. Movement in this direction began back

in 2001 with HPD and GDOT funding the publication of Tilling the Earth: Georgia’s Historic Agricultural Heritage. This

document provides an overview of the importance of agriculture throughout the state’s history and identifies

associated types of historic buildings, structures, landscapes, and archaeological sites. Additionally, some tools are

in place that have the potential to assist in the preservation of rural historic and cultural resources, including the

Georgia Land Conservation program and the Georgia Land Conservation Tax Credit. More recognition has come

in the form of the Centennial Farms Program, which since 1993 has recognized the importance of maintaining

historic family farms, in partnership between HPD, GFBF, GFC, GNFA, GEMC, and GDAg. Unfortunately, these efforts

fall short of historic and cultural resources preservation needs in agricultural and forest land, and additional tools are

necessary to promote their long-term protection.

Tourism Trends

Economic Impact Tourism is one of the world’s largest industries and can be a fundamental aspect of a community’s

economic vitality and sustainability. In Georgia, tourism is the state’s second largest industry

and heritage tourism is its fastest-growing segment. As of 2014, tourism accounted for $26.7

billion of spending in Georgia with a total estimated economic impact of $57.1 billion. Tourism

impact numbers from 2014 include:

◆ Direct travel domestic expenditures of $23.7 billion;

◆ Direct travel international expenditures of $2.9 billion;

◆ Combined direct expenditures generated 254,900 jobs within Georgia; and

◆ Combined direct expenditures generated $1.9 billion in tax revenue for state and local

governments. The historic Delaney Hotel, which was rehabilitated using historic preservation tax credits, is a heritage tourism asset in Convington, Newton County.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

26

Heritage Tourism The 2010 Heritage Tourism Handbook: A How-To Guide for Georgia observes that the historic and cultural resources

associated with people, events, or aspects of a community’s past give that community its sense of identity and

help tell its story. These resources are the most tangible reflections of a community’s heritage. History can and

should be used as a selling point for a community. The recognition of an area’s historic resources can bring

about neighborhood revitalization, increased and sustainable tourism, economic development through private

investment, and citizenship building.

The heritage tourist is interested in visiting destinations with a distinctive sense of place. Georgia has much to offer

the heritage tourist: Civil War battlefields, African American and Native American historic sites, house museums,

antebellum plantations, historic downtowns, military forts, gardens, lighthouses, presidential sites, courthouses,

railroad depots, and more.

Studies by the Travel Industry of America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), Louis Harris, Inc., and

Decima Research indicate that the heritage tourist tends to be:

◆ well-educated;

◆ older;

◆ cosmopolitan;

◆ interested in authenticity; and

◆ a generous spender.

According to the 2013 Cultural & Heritage Traveler report by Mandala Research, 76 percent of all US leisure travelers enjoy cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling, which translates to 129.6 million adults each year. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average of $1,319 per trip and contribute almost $171 billion annually to the US

economy.

Heritage tourism can aid in preserving a wide range of historic properties at all levels – local, regional, and state

– and can also contribute to historic preservation by keeping history and historic properties in the public eye.

Accordingly, the NTHP has identified five basic principles that make heritage preservation programs successful:

focus on authenticity and quality, preserve and protect resources; make sites come alive, find the fit between your

community and tourism, and collaborate and form partnerships. The synergy between preservation and heritage

tourism is illustrated by NRHP nominations offering the facts and documentation to tell the story of a place’s people

and its past, and preservation tax incentives encouraging private investment in historic properties

that support heritage tourism, such as shops, restaurants, and bed and breakfast inns. However, while

historic preservation makes heritage tourism possible, and heritage tourism supports preservation in

many distinct areas of interest, their relationship comes with the important challenge of protecting

historic and archaeological sites, while still giving tourists an authentic experience and understanding

of these places.

The Civil War Sesquicentennial April 2011 marked the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, commemoration of which

continued through 2015. Even after the anniversary, the Civil War still generates great interest, and

Georgia tourists find a vast array of historic sites and other attractions associated with the conflict

including battlefields, forts, markers, houses, relief maps, monuments, statues, museums, mills, Pickett's Mill Battlefield Historic Site, in Paulding County. Photo courtesy of Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites.

churches, depots, cemeteries, grave sites, bridges, parks, ferries, courthouses,

prison sites, plantations, arsenals, and lighthouses within the state. The 2010

publication Crossroads of Conflict: A Guide to Civil War Sites in Georgia provides a

comprehensive and informative list of these sites. These Civil War sites and other

pertinent information, including upcoming news and events, are also available on

GDEcD’s official Civil War website.

There also are a number of special Civil War-related trails in Georgia, many of which are listed in Crossroads of Conflict

and the Georgia Civil War website, but several have their own websites including the Atlanta Campaign Heritage

Trail, Blue & Gray Trail, Chickamauga Campaign Heritage Trail, Georgia’s Antebellum Trail, and March to the Sea

Heritage Trail.

The Civil Rights Movement A growing interest in African American tourism destinations has encouraged their preservation and development

and continues to expand. Several significant Civil Rights Movement sites across Georgia are now open, including

Dorchester Academy in Liberty County, Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta, Mt. Zion Albany Civil

Rights Institute, Atlanta Center University Historic District, and Ralph Mark Gilbert Civil Rights Museum in Savannah.

National Heritage AreasThe US Congress designates National Heritage Areas (NHA). This regional collaborative effort includes residents,

businesses, and government joining together to preserve, promote, and celebrate the heritage and culture of a

region. Heritage areas move beyond the boundaries of local governments and specific local identity to thematically

link multiple cultural landscapes. Designation of NHAs comes with limited technical and financial assistance from

the NPS. Georgia has three designated NHAs: the Augusta Canal (Georgia’s first National Heritage Area), Arabia

Mountain, and the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. As an example of the breadth of projects an NHA

can accomplish, the Arabia Mountain NHA has recently implemented an NHA-wide interpretive plan, completed

a 30-mile bike trail linking historic sites, drafted multiple National Register Nominations, consulted on local historic

districts, along with the adaptive reuse of a historic farmhouse, and offered operational support for a historic African

American cultural center.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“Because once its gone, it is lost.”

(Left) Birth home of Martin Luther King Jr., located within the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Right) A barn on the historic Vaughters Farm , in Lithonia,is within the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area. Photo courtesy of the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

28

National Trails The non-profit group American Trails has designated the years 2008-2018 as the “Decade for National Trails,” leading

up to the 50th anniversary of the National Trails System Act in 2018. This Act opened the door to federal involvement

in trails of all types, from city centers to the remote backcountry. Almost all trails in the country have benefited from

the Act. The NPS, US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USFS, USFWS, and USACE play key roles in administering

and managing these trails, while the FHWA has been an important source of funding. Today, the National Trails

System totals over 60,000 miles in all 50 states.

The National Trails System Annual Report Fiscal Year 2009 noted that “These trails offer unmatched quality of life

experiences in outdoor recreation, education, scenic transportation, and access to the precious natural and cultural

resources that define us as a Nation. And, essential to all these efforts is an unwavering, impressive, and ever growing

cadre of volunteers.” However, the Federal Fiscal Year 2012 report found that:

Major challenges continue to face these trails. An aging workforce and changing technologies are

impacting volunteerism. Many lean state budgets mean closing state parks and reducing staff

involved in the trails. Reduced Federal budgets will be a challenge to all the trails. Vandalism, neglect,

erosion, and development continue to take their toll locally on resources associated with these trails.

Energy independence and the wish to upgrade and add utility corridors may severely damage the

visual quality of many of these trails. On the hopeful side, certain trends suggest new breakthroughs in

collaboration. America’s Great Outdoors (AGO) and related efforts have fostered increased interagency

collaboration as well as better cooperation and communication within agencies. Retiring trail staffers

have been replaced by energetic and seasoned mid-career professionals who expand the talent pool

within the Trails System. Each year brings greater recognition of the National Trails System and the

complex challenges it faces. And, increased public and private community investments enhance and

embed the trails into the heart of community life.

National Historic Trails are designated by Congress and include extended trails that closely follow a historic trail

or route of travel of national significance. Designation identifies and protects historic routes, historic remnants, and

artifacts for public use and enjoyment. There are over 5,343 miles of 19 National Historic Trails in the US, including

the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail in Georgia.

National Scenic Trails are designated by Congress and include extended trails that provide maximum outdoor

recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of various qualities – scenic, historical, natural, and

cultural – of the areas they traverse. There are 11 National Scenic Trails in the US, including the Appalachian National

Scenic Trail in Georgia.

National Recreation Trails may be designated by the US Secretary of Interior or the US Secretary of Agriculture

to recognize exemplary trails of local and regional significance. Nearly 1,100 recreational trails throughout the US

are available for public use and, ranging from less than a mile to 485 miles in length, have been designated as

National Recreation Trails (NRTs) on federal, state, municipal, and privately owned lands. Currently, there are 16 NRTs

in Georgia, including the famous William Bartram Trail, Silver Comet Trail, and Anna Ruby Falls Trail. These trails help

preserve historic resources and connect historic communities.

29

Emerging Tourism Trends The tourism industry has developed into many specialty “niche” markets. Below are some of the newer types of

tourism that will increasingly attract visitors in the coming years.

EcotourismEcotourism is a form of low-impact, small-scale tourism that involves visiting

natural areas in order to observe wildlife and plants. Activities include hiking,

climbing, road cycling, horseback riding, river rafting, kayaking, zip lining, bird

watching, and more. Ecotourism provides incentives to preserve natural areas,

including archaeological sites, and, by its small-scale nature, has less of a potential

to impact historic properties.

AgritourismAgritourism involves agriculturally-based operations or activities that bring visitors

to a farm or ranch. Activities include organic produce and meat markets, corn

mazes, apple or pumpkin picking, animal encounters, staying at a farm bed and

breakfast, or visiting living history farm museums. Agritourism provides added

revenues that help maintain the viability of historic farms.

Edu-TourismEdu-Tourism focuses on learning. Activities include short- or long-term academic programs, conferences and

seminars, sabbaticals, and student exchange programs. Edu-tourism overlaps with heritage tourism by bringing an

educated public to areas with historic properties they may wish to explore.

Urban TourismUrban Tourism is the number one inudstry in many cities, not only contributing to rising income but also generating

many rehabilitation projects. Activities include visiting museums or art galleries, historic sites or districts, theaters and

cinemas, concert halls, nightclubs and casinos; attending festivals, sports events, conventions, and other organized

events; or simply shopping and eating in unique restaurants.

Government Trends

Fifty Years of Federal Preservation The year 2016 marked the 50th anniversary of the NHPA of 1966. The

impact of this act on the nation’s historic landscape is monumental: a

historic preservation program in every state of the union, hundreds

of thousands of historic properties identified and protected, millions

of private dollars invested in the adaptive reuse of historic properties,

thousands of archaeological sites studied, and communities all across

America invested in their downtowns and residential neighborhoods.

Since the passage of the NHPA, the federal government has provided support for preservation through legal

protection, creation of a national preservation system, educational programs, technical assistance, tax incentives,

and funding through the HPF. As state revenues decreased due to the economic downturn of the Great Recession,

this support was critical to preservation efforts throughout Georgia, and remains critical even as state funding has

stabilized.

A year-long initiative, called Preservation50, brought together preservation organizations and the public to spread awareness of the NHPA and celebrate its anniversary.

Kayakers at Stephen C. Foster State Park, in Fargo, Georgia., are among the many Georgians taking part in ecotourism around the state. Photo Courtesy Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

30

Federal Support for Preservation For Federal Fiscal Year 2016, Congress provided $46.93 million for the HPF. While predicting congressional budgets

is difficult, as this plan is finalized, it appears a continuing resolution is likely. Overall, the current federal budget

outlook is one of stability for the near term.

Tax IncentivesThrough the investment and low-income tax credit programs, the Internal Revenue Service allows investors to

receive a tax credit on the rehabilitation of historic, income-producing property. These tax credit programs have

stimulated private investment in historic properties throughout Georgia, and in many cases have provided low-

income housing. Between 2012 and 2015, the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program has assisted in

rehabilitating 83 buildings in Georgia, representing direct private investment of over $115 million.

Technical AssistanceNPS, through its Technical Preservation Services program and National Center for Preservation Technology and

Training, develops and provides technical information about preservation issues. The General Services Administration,

which is responsible for maintaining federal government properties including many historic buildings, also has

developed technical assistance and best practices information. This information is available to the public from these

federal agency’s websites.

National ParksThe NPS operates many historic sites providing valuable public access, interpretation, and protection to their historic

resources, as well as supporting tourism in neighboring communities. In Georgia, National Park units with primarily

historic associations include Andersonville National Historic Site, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military

Park, Cumberland Island National Seashore, Fort Frederica National Monument, Fort Pulaski National Monument,

Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, Martin Luther King, Jr. National

Historic Site, Ocmulgee National Monument, and Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.

Ocmulgee National Monument, in Macon. Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.

31

Community Development Block GrantsHUD, through its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, provides funding for development of

viable communities, which often involves revitalization of historic neighborhoods and business districts. Between

2012 and 2016, Georgia’s portion of CDBG funding directed toward neighborhood revitalization was over $9.7

million.

Preserve America While still authorized, the Preserve America program has been on hiatus since 2010 due to a lack of funding.

Preserve America was initiated in September 2003 by the White House and the ACHP. The program provided cities

and neighborhoods interested in historic preservation the opportunity to become a Preserve America community

and receive recognition and grants for a variety of preservation and heritage tourism projects. By May 2011, when

funding was halted, 37 communities in Georgia had received this recognition.

Save America’s TreasuresWhile also still authorized, the Save America’s Treasures program has likewise been on hiatus since 2010 due to a lack

of funding. Save America’s Treasures was established by Executive Order 13072 in February 1998 and is administered

by NPS in partnership with the NTHP, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities,

Institute of Museum and Library Services, and President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. The program

helped preserve nationally significant historic properties and collections that convey our nation’s rich heritage for

future generations of Americans. From 1999 to 2010, Save America’s Treasures grants awarded over $318 million,

matched by over $400 million from states, localities, corporations, foundations, and individuals, for 1,241 projects. By

the time the funding was halted for the program, Georgia had received over $5.6 million for 23 projects.

Military Base Redevelopment In many cases, federal ownership of historic properties can result in their

protection. When the federal government no longer needs these properties,

new uses need to be identified to ensure their future viability. The Department

of Defense’s Legacy Program helps to preserve historic resources located on

military bases. The BRAC 2005 legislation resulted in the closure of various

military facilities in Georgia. The Naval Supply Corps School in Athens-Clarke

County was transferred to UGA in April 2011. Fort Gillem in Clayton County,

and Fort McPherson in Atlanta, Fulton County, closed in September 2011. In

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Navy and Army, respectively,

consulted with HPD and other consulting parties to develop memorandums of

agreement that stipulate treatment of historic properties. The majority of Fort

Gillem was purchased in 2012 by the City of Forest Park and its ownership was then transferred to a redevelopment

authority, which is currently focusing on commercial and industrial redevelopment of the installation. Fort

McPherson was also transferred to a redevelopment authority and a significant portion was sold to a movie and TV

studio, including the majority of the historic buildings. Between continued consultation under HPD-held covenants

and talks of another round of BRAC, federal ownership of historic resources continues to influence preservation in

Georgia.

Other Federal Preservation-Related Initiatives Sustainability and energy efficiency, and their relationship to historic preservation, continue to be important issues.

While Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, issued in 2009,

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“Historic buildings in disrepair facing possible demolition. Public awareness about the reasons for funding. Knowledge in keeping the buildings themselves as original as possible.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

32

has been revoked, its replacement Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade,

issued in 2015, also requires federal agencies to prepare Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans to achieve high

performance for operating and maintaining federal facilities, including historic buildings. To assist federal agencies

in addressing these issues, ACHP developed a guide entitled Sustainability and Historic Federal Buildings, while NPS

has produced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability

for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Additionally, federal agencies are charged with developing, planning, and

implementing strategies to address the effects of climate change on historic resources. While this change has

not resulted in any direct programs as of yet, NPS’ NCPTT has compiled a series of case studies that identied the

challenges climate change brings to cultural and historic resource management.

State FundingFollowing six years of successive budget reductions, state funding for HPD stabilized

in 2015. Budgets remained level through 2016. Budget stability has allowed HPD to

engage in more effective strategic planning, which has benefitted historic preservation

statewide. Other developments in state government will benefit historic preservation.

Due to increased attention to relationship building at the agency level, driven by

the GDNR Commissioner’s Office, state legislators are more informed about HPD

and our partners in preservation, such as GTHP, who works diligently to educate

legislators about historic preservation. In the summer of 2016, the Georgia House of

Representatives convened a Historic Preservation Study Committee to examine both

HPD and GPRHSD’s stewardship of historic sites and to provide guidance on how we

might improve our programming, results of which are forthcoming.

HPD has significantly increased support of our sister divisions GPRHSD and Georgia

Wildlife Resources Division (GWRD). Both of these agencies manage historic buildings

and landscapes ranging from Civilian Conservation Corps cabins, to plantation

landscapes, to a 1830s lighthouse. Prioritizing maintenance on these properties has

historically been a significant challenge. However, for the first time in its history, HPD

was given monies from state bond sales to conduct conditions assessment reports

on GDNR’s inventory of historic resources. This ongoing process will allow HPD to

more proactively engage with GPRHSD and GWRD about planning for their historic

resources and GDNR to more effectively manage their maintenance needs.

In the spring of 2015, after 63 years in downtown Atlanta, HPD moved from Capitol Hill

to a purpose-built facility located at Panola Mountain State Park. This move was part of a larger effort to relieve HPD

of the steadily escalating rents downtown and to provide budget flexibility. The new facility, the Mary Jewett Center

for Historic Preservation, is named in honor of Mary Gregory Jewett who led the office from 1960 to 1974 and was

instrumental in establishing its national reputation. HPD plans to expand and rehabilitate an existing laboratory,

adjacent to the center, for archaeology lab space, as well as rehabilitate a small fabrication shop. The office is co-

located with GPRHSD to facilitate closer coordination between the two divisions.

Additionally in 2015, Governor Deal signed legislation that significantly improved the State Income Tax Credit for

Rehabilitated Historic Property. The new program started in January 2016 and increases the credit for non-residential

properties from $300,000 to $5 million and allows for their “sale,” while establishing a $25 million annual statewide

The Mary Jewett Center for Historic Preservation, at Panola Mountain State Park, in Henry County, became the headquarters of the Historic Preservation Division in 2015.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Be aware, participate when an opportunity is present, work towards maintaining my own property. Share with others what is the GA State Historic Preservation Plan.”

33

program cap. It further established a special category of projects, eligible for up to $10 million in credits, which

comes with a requirement to create 200 full-time jobs or $5 million in annual payroll in the first two years the

structure is in service. Response to the changes in the program was remarkable; after the law’s passage, the number

of proposed project applications jumped by 50 percent with associated private investment tripling compared to

prior years. HPD estimates that all available credits have been allocated into the state’s Fiscal Year 2019 and perhaps

beyond.

As the economy has improved, so has the outlook for historic preservation. The increased cap for the State Income

Tax Credit for Rehabilitated Historic Property helped promote the preservation and use of historic buildings while

increasing the visibility of HPD across the state. Budget stability, combined with increased outreach to the Georgia

General Assembly, has allowed for longer-range planning than was feasible during the Great Recession. Finally,

moving to new facilities has created opportunities for closer coordination with GPRHSD and has provided some

much-needed budget flexibility allowing HPD to more effectively engage in state-level preservation projects and to

take advantage of other preservation-related opportunities when they arise.

Other State Preservation-Related Initiatives GDCA is the state agency responsible for assisting local communities

with planning, economic development, and affordable housing.

This assistance includes its Main Street program, of which historic

preservation is an integral component. GDCA also assists communities

with preservation projects through its Local Development Fund.

Additionally, as the state agency providing local and regional planning

assistance, GDCA includes historic preservation in local comprehensive

plans, which results in better integration of historic preservation into

the larger comprehensive planning process, now and in the future.

GDCA also provides regional planning assistance, which is directed

through twelve regional commissions. Associated rules require

Georgia’s regional commissions to identify “regionally important

resources,” which includes “…any natural or cultural resource identified

for protection by a Regional Commission following the minimum

requirements established by the Department.” By including historic

and archaeological resources within the broader context of managing environmental resources and landscapes of

regional importance, regional commissions provide an important mechanism for the consideration of resources in

planning and protection.

Another state initiative is the Georgia Land Conservation Program (GLCP), which was established in 2005 and is

administered by the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA). The purpose of the program is to acquire

and protect sensitive lands for conservation – historic properties and archaeological sites also benefit under this

initiative. Through 2014, 43 projects have resulted in 48,574 acres being acquired by the state, 53,628 acres are

protected under 49 conservation easements held by the state, and GLCP has provided funding assistance that has

facilitated 645 projects resulting in 300,378 acres being protected by conservation easements held by non-state

conservation organizations.

The Henry County Courthouse in downtown McDonough. In 2016, the City of McDonough became the 95th Certified Local Government in Georgia.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Local Historic Preservation Commissions and Certified Local Governments The Georgia Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (O.C.G.A. 44-10-2) is the state’s enabling legislation

that gives local governments the authority to designate historic properties and establish a

design review process for their protection by means of local historic preservation ordinances

and commissions. As well as designating historic properties and districts, the commission

functions as a design review board to make citizen-based decisions about the appropriateness

of new design and changes to historic buildings to ensure they respect the historic character

of a property and its setting. The number of historic preservation commissions in Georgia

continues to increase. Prior to the Act, Georgia had only seven commissions. In 2000, there

were 90 and by 2016, there were 142.

Many communities in Georgia with historic preservation commissions have also elected

to participate in Georgia’s CLG program. Along with passing a preservation ordinance and

establishing a local commission that complies with the Georgia Historic Preservation Act,

becoming a CLG also requires a community to meet certain other requirements to more

actively protect their historic properties. CLGs enter into a preservation partnership with HPD

and NPS to better integrate historic preservation programs at local, state, and federal levels.

CLGs benefit from this status by receiving direct technical assistance and being eligible for grant

funds passed through HPD from NPS. Furthermore, CLGs benefit by having a voice in federal

preservation decisions, such as nominating properties to the NRHP and participating in the

NHPA Section 106 process.

Natural Hazards and Disaster Response Trends

Response planning for natural hazards already associated with weather and climate-induced phenomena has

received increased attention within the past five years. While distinguishing between cause and effect allows

scientific data and observations to be considered for planning and technical guidance, it also fixes preservation

attentions more on disaster preparedness and response to severe weather events, including wind damage caused

by hurricanes and tornadoes, flood damage caused by extreme rainfall and storm surge, and fire damage associated

with drought conditions, as well as less suddenly dramatic events such as impacts from sea level rise and erosion.

Preservation efforts in addressing disaster preparedness and response are challenging because there is no central

repository of information or agency/organization dedicated to developing guidance specifically directed to

preservation issues and concerns. Rather, information is available through a number of different sources. These

sources include federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which are responsible for collecting data on climate

and weather, and FEMA, which is tasked with providing national planning guidance under the National Response

Framework, along with state and local agencies with experience preparing for particular types of severe weather

events, such as Florida and Miami-Dade County (FL) for hurricanes.

Unfortunately, the dispersed availability of information aggravates the task of compiling and customizing it for use

in disaster events due to the limited capacity of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and other preservation

organizations to dedicate staff to creating plans that would only be used on relatively rare occasions (as compared

to first responders where planning for emergency situations is an active part of their mission). Recognizing these

In 2016, HPD archaeologists surveyed wind and water damage at several sites along the Georgia coast, in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. The event has served to inform improved disaster planning techniques, with regard to our state’s historic resources.

35

difficulties, however, should not mean disregarding disaster planning because the obstacles are challenging,

but rather to initiate efforts with realistic expectations.

With expectations and limitations in mind, disaster response planning by SHPOs should include:

◆ Identifying and understanding risks and vulnerabilities to historic resources in regions and localities;

◆ Identifying and understanding the functions of federal, state, and local government agencies in disaster

response and recovery;

◆ Identifying partner agencies and organizations and coordination opportunities;

◆ Compiling available technical guidance for preparing for severe weather events and developing

distribution strategies;

◆ Compiling available technical guidance for disaster recovery planning and developing distribution

strategies;

◆ Identifying SHPO resources that could be of potential assistance in disaster response and recovery and

developing strategies to make them readily available when needed;

◆ Establishing a liaison plan with emergency responding agencies (at both initial response and recovery

operations phases);

◆ Establishing a standby plan for administering disaster recovery assistance if a temporary program is

established and funded; and

◆ Evaluating the effectiveness of the disaster response plan as part of post-action planning activities.

In Georgia, there has been slow progress in HPD’s attempts to develop a practical and sustainable historic

resources preservation disaster response plan. Past attempts have been hindered by targeting efforts on

an independent, comprehensive approach that would include disaster response activities beyond the

normal capacity of existing staff with expectation that additional resources would be made available for

implementation. Recent efforts have concentrated on ensuring HPD affiliation with Georgia’s existing disaster

response system under the National Response Framework, the Georgia Emergency Operations Plan, Emergency

Support Function (ESF) 11 – Agricultural and Natural Resources, by fulfilling the basic responsibilities identified in

the Georgia Historic Resources Emergency Plan – Appendix to ESF-11, and incorporating guidance provided by

ACHP Unified Federal Review streamlining initiatives where applicable.

Growth and Development Strategies

Land Use and Zoning Managing growth and development requires planning and political interest along with suitable tools to

support planning decisions. One tool used to regulate development and land use is zoning. In 2000, only 44

percent of Georgia’s 159 counties had enacted a zoning ordinance. According to 2016 data from the Georgia

Association of Zoning Administrators, that number has grown to 73 percent (116 of 159 counties). Additionally,

76 percent (401 of 525) of incorporated cities and towns have zoning ordinances. Significantly, cities, counties,

and regions that have experienced rapid growth or recognize development as an issue have almost universally

embraced zoning for regulating land use. Land use and zoning ordinances that take historic preservation into

account can help preserve a region’s historic properties.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

36

Comprehensive Land Use Planning As required by the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 and GDCA regulations, local

governments have produced comprehensive plans that include existing and

future land use maps. Statewide planning goals adopted by GDCA include the

preservation and protection of Georgia’s historic resources. Comprehensive

plans are required to include consideration of natural and historic resources and

to integrate this information into future land use decisions. In addition, GDCA’s

regulations for local planning emphasize the identification of character-rich areas

and development patterns and an interest in how communities look and feel.

Community involvement is stressed, and implementation measures are required.

These activities offer opportunities for historic properties to be taken into account

in comprehensive planning.

Producing a comprehensive plan and implementing it is an important step for

communities as they prepare for the future. Planning and zoning are not in conflict

with growth but are tools for local governments to help them preserve and

enhance their quality of life while guiding growth. Preparing and implementing

a comprehensive land use plan can be an effective way to achieve both growth

management and historic preservation goals.

Regional Planning Under some circumstances, a regional perspective on planning is desirable. One

example is the Georgia coastal area, which is experiencing rapid growth and also

has a wealth of scenic and natural beauty as well as cultural and historic resources.

GDCA completed a Coastal Comprehensive Plan in 2007 for the six coastal Georgia

counties: Chatham, Bryan, Liberty, McIntosh, Glynn, and Camden. More recently,

the Coastal Regional Commission’s The Regional Plan of Coastal Georgia (amended

2012), which includes discussion of preservation issues and opportunities, and

the 2012 Regional Important Resources Plan, which includes detailed information

and maps of the region’s historic properties as well as recommendations for their

protection, were created as companion plans.

The Main Street Approach The Main Street Program was developed by NTHP to assist in the economic revitalization of declining downtowns.

Communities utilize the Main Street Approach by creating a vision of success based on market realities, identifying

transformation strategies, applying the strategies through the Main Street Four Points, and then measuring their

outcomes.

Participation by Georgia communities in the Main Street Program began early and, as of 2016, has grown from five

to 105 communities. It is administered in Georgia by GDCA and includes participation under four classifications: Tier

1 – Downtown Start-Up Program, Tier 2 – Classic Main Street Program, Tier 3 – Georgia’s Exceptional Main Streets,

and Tier 4 – Downtown Affiliate Network.

The city of Suwanee, located in Gwinnett County, is one of Georgia’s Main Street program cities. Photo courtesy of the Georgia Department of Community Affairs.

37

With Main Street’s emphasis on capitalizing on existing infrastructure and historic building stock, the program has

helped revitalized many historic communities across Georgia and its success is demonstrated by the 5,100 net new

businesses that opened their doors in Georgia Main Street downtowns from 2000 to 2010.

Heritage Tourism Development Increasingly in Georgia, tourism is a key economic development strategy used by communities. Heritage and

cultural tourism create opportunities for communities to identify, package, and market their existing historic assets.

Increased tourism can translate into local job creation, additional revenue to local governments through increased

occupancy and sales taxes, and provide an economic boost that encourages the rehabilitation of historic properties.

As tourism has received greater emphasis as a local development tool, it has also been recognized that collaboration

among various local, state, and federal agencies is essential in its initial development and for long-term success.

The Tourism Product Development (TPD) Resource Team was created in 2009 to help

Georgia communities make the most of their tourism assets. GDEcD, through its TPD

Office, created the program to evaluate a community’s potential for tourism growth and

development through innovative and unique local experiences. Drawing from a variety

of state, federal, regional, and local economic development agencies, including GDCA

and GDNR, TPD Resource Team members provide in-depth analysis of a community’s

tourism potential in the areas of Agritourism, Arts and Culture, Culinary, Festivals and

Events, Heritage/Historic Preservation, Industrial Tourism, Nature and Adventure, and

Sports and Recreation, as well as associated aspects including lodging and downtown

redevelopment. Since its inception, 31 communities have taken advantage of TPD

Resource Teams. The program remains ongoing, with HPD available for technical

assistance on an as-needed basis.

Partnerships

Georgia is fortunate to have strong state and local preservation

partners with which to form the crucial links between the private,

public, and nonprofit sectors that are the foundation of Georgia’s

broad-based and widely respected preservation programs.

Partnering with groups that have common goals supporting

preservation is fundamental to the way preservation takes place

in Georgia. At the local level, such collaborations are evidenced by

preservation organizations, historical and archaeological societies,

foundations, heritage museums, commissions, neighborhood

associations, chambers of commerce, local governments, and

homeowners regularly joining forces to champion preservation

causes and develop innovative solutions to difficult preservation

challenges. With greater frequency, collaboration is including

non-traditional partners, such as real estate agents, developers,

commercial interests, and local, state, and federal development

agencies, working with preservationists to achieve a shared vision

for enhancing quality of life, creating jobs, and strengthening

economic development.

The Society for Georgia Archaeology’s ArchaeoBus tours the state to provide hands–on learning activities and information about Georgia’s archaeological heritage.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Advancing historic preservation in Georgia is a group effort and I will continue to seek partnerships with other like-minded non-profit groups and state agencies. I will continue to promote historic preservation as an inclusive effort, not as an elitist or exclusive group.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

38

Georgia also benefits by having multiple universities with historic preservation and/or public history programs.

These programs continue to educate preservation professionals and even directly assist with preservation projects

throughout the state. Universities also train students in other disciplines relevant to the historic preservation

field, such as anthropology, archaeology, architecture, geography, and planning. Their importance as partners is

underscored by the volume of preservation activity created by students, including surveys, National Register

nominations, and historic resource research projects, completed every year.

Statewide organizations with direct involvement in preservation, such as GTHP, Georgians for Preservation Action,

Society for Georgia Archaeology (SGA), Georgia Council of Professional Archaeologists, Georgia Civil War Commission,

and Georgia African American Historic Preservation Network (GAAHPN), continue to support preservation interests

and achieve preservation goals, often coordinating through HPD. These associations frequently expand to include

other groups such as GMA, Georgia Cities Foundation, Association County Commissioners of Georgia, Legislative

Black Caucus, regional commissions, and the large number of smart growth, land conservation, natural area,

transportation, recreation, planning, and tourism organizations, when common-interest issues and challenges need

to be addressed.

Conclusion

Even considering the maturation of preservation in the US as it moves into its second half-century, its fundamental

nature is essentially unchanged. Identifying and recording historic resources, especially as new types come into

the equation, protecting historic and archaeological resources threatened by development or redevelopment,

revitalizing historic neighborhoods and commercial areas, finding adaptive uses for historic buildings, providing

financial resources for the stewardship of historic resources, developing guidance for preservation issues, and

representing preservation interests in government undertakings continue as preservation goals.

In response, preservationists must continue efforts to seek or strengthen partnerships, incorporate new technologies,

and expand preservation to new audiences. Proponents of preservation emphasize its role as a basic component of

smart growth initiatives and its importance in statewide and community comprehensive planning. Advocates need

to continue efforts to grow financial support for preservation and rehabilitation projects and other preservation

assistance through increased federal and state grants and tax incentives. Preservation organizations and agencies

need to expand outreach and educational programs to inform the public, business community, and governments

about the importance and benefits of preservation. Groups with compatible interests need to be convinced to

more actively include preservation within their missions. Preservation consultants and businesses should establish a

professional association to promote appropriate commercial interests of preservation and expand connections with

developers, bankers, and business associations. Furthermore, elected officials should continue to make preservation

a priority and to provide the financial support to agencies to enable them to fulfill regulatory and statutory duties to

enhance and deliver improved information and tools to sustain preservation.

Ultimately, preservation is about quality of life and sustainability in the environment and economy. It provides the

tools, technical assistance, and information homeowners and neighborhood groups need to preserve Georgia’s

historic buildings that form stable and revitalized neighborhoods and communities. Recognizing archaeological

39

sites, landscapes, and other aspects of the built environment as assets benefits communities by enhancing education,

interpretation, and tourism. Preservation is also integral to recognition and appreciation for African American and

Civil Rights-era resources. It is also fundamental to recognizing and appreciating resources of the recent past and

under-represented communities.

Even with the tangible aspects of preservation, such as rehabilitation projects and existing financial incentives, its

value is often under appreciated and the case still must be made that keeping and using Georgia’s legacy of historic

properties not only enhances our collective sense of place and quality of life, but also makes economic sense.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Mission, Vision, and Goals

A plan is only useful if it is put into action. A vision of a better future is only a dream unless it is accompanied by

ongoing commitment, strategic focus, and hard work to turn the vision into reality. Therefore, the heart of Georgia’s

State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021: Integrating Innovation with Preservation is this set of goals, objectives, and

strategies that are designed to preserve, protect, and use Georgia’s historic resources so that they may exist into the

future. The goals respond to the major trends affecting Georgia and the effects of these trends on the preservation

of Georgia’s historic properties and to preservation stakeholders’ comments gathered through the plan’s public

participation process.

A Vision for Historic Preservation in Georgia

Georgians will value historic places for the important roles they play in our social and economic lives. Property owners,

local communities, and state agencies will possess the knowledge and the legal and financial tools to preserve their

historic properties. The Historic Preservation Division will play a critical role as the state historic preservation office in

increasing citizen engagement with the historic places that make the state unique including local landmarks, state

historic sites, and national historic landmarks and sites. Through its education and citizen engagement programs,

the Historic Preservation Division will help the department instill a conservation ethic among Georgia citizens.

Mission Statement: To promote the preservation and use of historic places for a better Georgia.

41

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies

The goals and objectives in this chapter are all considered important. They provide a statewide framework to focus

preservation activities throughout Georgia. It is the variety of historic properties within the state that inform the

preservation techniques and strategies promoted in this plan as part of HPD’s commitment to preserving all of

Georgia’s history. HPD aims to document Georgia’s heritage, identify its contribution to the collective community,

and present opportunities to enhance quality of life for all Georgians through historic preservation and related

activities.

Many other preservation partners must plan their own set of actions in order for the goals of preservation to be

fully realized. For example, preserving Georgia’s historic resources and building a preservation ethic across the

state will require all of us to spread the word about the value of preservation and to encourage and actively seek

participation of groups not traditionally members of preservation organizations. Educating the next generation of

Georgians about history and preservation is also an endeavor that involves us all. By utilizing new technologies,

social trends, and innovative strategies, while expanding on existing technologies, exploring modern applications,

and collaborating with fresh faces, we will come closer to accomplishing our preservation goals.

Goal 1: Preserve Georgia’s Historic Properties

Objective 1.A: Identify and evaluate historic properties and facilitate the dissemination of information about

them for compliance, context, planning, and educational purposes

Strategy 1.A.1: Update and expand existing historic resource identification guidance to more effectively

support the state’s preservation programs and promote a deeper understanding of Georgia’s historic resources

Action items:

◆ Identify categories and eras of historic resources, including recent past resources (mid-20th century

and later), to systematically direct HPD’s activities in developing a series of volumes on evaluation

guidance

◆ Prepare individual overviews of historic resource types based on identified categories and eras

modeled after The Ranch House in Georgia: Guidelines for Evaluation and post on HPD’s website

◆ Identify and evaluate buildings in cooperation with property-owning state agencies to encourage the

creation of historic preservation plans

Strategy 1.A.2: Expand the use of technology to widen the audience for, and provide better access to,

information about historic resources and to support program efficiency measures

Action items:

◆ Fully integrate GNAHRGIS into HPD’s preservation planning and business processes

◆ Improve the electronic workflow to increase the number of archaeological sites recorded as

Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles in GNAHRGIS

◆ Continue the transition of Environmental Review and Tax Incentive program databases to new flexible

and sustainable platforms

◆ Prepare and implement a plan to transition HPD program applications to all-digital submission formats

◆ Develop and implement a pilot project for digitizing program legacy files

◆ Provide resources on preservation topics through online outlets including HPD‘s website and various

social media sites to reach a broader audience

◆ Implement new technologies to create more interactive experiences with the past

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

42

Strategy 1.A.3: Relaunch a sustainable underwater archaeological program

Action items:

◆ Survey program configurations in neighboring states’ offices that have comparable

budgets

◆ Survey potential institutional partners both inside and outside Georgia state

government

◆ Identify funding and relaunch underwater archaeology program

◆ Recommend evaluation and documentation of eligible underwater archaeological

resources for National Register consideration

Strategy 1.A.4: Sponsor archaeological research programs for lands and collections that

incorporate the best scholarship for interpretation and management purposes

Action items:

◆ Actively seek new collaboration with colleges and universities, as well as non-profit

institutions

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“It is deeper, richer, older, and far more complex than meets the eye. Our own history is as vital and alive as any fantasy tale now riveting modern audiences -- but young people don’t know that. Our challenge is to present the narrative as flesh and blood; passion and fear and courage and the struggle always to survive and move forward. Those stories just happen to be hidden in buildings, landscapes, railroads, battlefields, cabins, industrial sites, houses, and cemeteries.”

The GNAHRGIS database plots historic sites on a searchable, interactive website.

43

◆ Collaborate with GDNR to develop long-term research agendas for ongoing investigations, such as

Camp Lawton in Magnolia Springs State Park and Sapelo and Ossabaw islands

◆ Emphasize the research potential of GDNR’s curated archaeological collections

◆ Recommend evaluation and documentation of eligible archaeological resources for National Register

consideration

Strategy 1.A.5: Expand existing capacity of survey program

Action items:

◆ Direct additional agency resources to the survey program

◆ Identify areas of the state needing initial or updated surveys for historic resources to systematically

direct HPD’s survey activities

◆ Explore alternate-funding sources to conduct surveys

◆ Review and update survey program procedures for operational effectiveness

◆ Review and update survey guidance materials for use by applicants and consultants

Objective 1.B: Provide information and guidance about historic preservation techniques and programs to help

individuals, organizations, and communities preserve historic resources

Strategy 1.B.1: Provide information and technical advice to guide the protection and preservation of historic

cemeteries throughout Georgia

Action items:

◆ Compile and provide information on the different types of historic cemeteries in Georgia and

disseminate

◆ Continue collaboration with the Georgia Municipal Cemetery Association (GMCA), including a

sponsorship role for the annual conference in partnership with GMCA and GDEcD

◆ Attend public meetings and invited lectures to aid in making information about cemetery preservation

and protection accessible to the public, including distribution of the Grave Intentions publication

Strategy 1.B.2: Sustain and expand the use of state and federal preservation tax incentives programs

Action items:

◆ Review and update tax incentives program procedures for operational effectiveness and responsiveness

to applicant concerns

◆ Review and update public information materials to present the tax incentives programs (procedures,

rehabilitation standards, application forms, review process) as clearly as possible to applicants and

constituents

◆ Reestablish and expand collaborative partnerships for promoting preservation tax incentive programs

with state and local development agencies and organizations

◆ Develop and update promotional materials and programming for use in presentations to targeted

(preservation tax incentive potential) audiences

◆ Develop applicant and consultant training materials and programming and provide training

workshops (contingent on suitable local sponsorship)

◆ Commission economic benefits study of preservation activities, including tax incentives

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

44

Strategy 1.B.3: Sustain and expand outreach and training for local historic preservation

commissions

Action items:

◆ Investigate and implement, as appropriate, new training through webinars, interactive

websites, and other media, in coordination with stakeholders, including the National

Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Georgia Alliance of Preservation Commissions,

and Georgia’s regional commissions

◆ Support Georgia’s historic preservation commissions to provide education and

technical assistance and to facilitate discussion of local issues

◆ Develop forums in conjunction with regional partners to provide targeted training and

to increase awareness of non-traditional preservation tools

◆ Provide regional training sessions to educate commissions, officials, staff, and the public

on preservation law, authorities, and best practices of commissions, architectural

types/styles, and related subjects

◆ Provide reference material regarding federal, state, and local legal frameworks for

preservation activities through web and other means

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“Public awareness appreciation and support. Public understanding of how preservation happens, the laws and the opportunities and potential benefits for undeserved communities. Financial and technical support for preservation.”

Continuing to identify opportunities to train and assist local historic preservation commissions is integral in supporting historic preservation efforts at a local level.

45

Strategy 1.B.4: Increase the preservation, continued use, and/or adaptive use of recent past historic buildings

Action items:

◆ Prepare and distribute guidance material for the preservation, continued use, and/or adaptive use of

recent past historic buildings

◆ Identify specific challenges and areas of concern regarding the application of the Secretary’s Standards

to recent past historic buildings and propose solutions

◆ Prepare or commission contexts for recent past historic resources

◆ Amend and update “legacy” National Register historic district nominations to include recent past

buildings that are now historic so property owners can take advantage of preservation tax incentives

Strategy 1.B.5: Support state agency preservation planning

Action items:

◆ Develop and implement a pilot project to identify historic resources under the ownership/control of

a sister GDNR agency

◆ Develop and implement a program to assist sister GDNR agencies to prepare Condition Assessment

Reports, Historic Structure Reports, or other preservation planning documents for individual historic

properties under their ownership/control

◆ Collaborate with other state agencies to implement comparable preservation planning assistance

programs

Objective 1.C: Identify sources of funding for preservation initiatives

Strategy 1.C.1: Leverage private and federal grants as sources of additional funding

Action items:

◆ Identify grants to support projects in historic preservation and archaeology and partner with non-

profit institutions and universities to apply for the grants

Strategy 1.C.2: Develop alternate funding streams to support preservation activities

Action items:

◆ Identify and compile projects with known budget considerations, quick start capability, and short-

duration completion periods suitable for funding from intermittent sources, including preservation

license plates

◆ Establish policies and procedures to provide for a mitigation bank and oversight for creative mitigation

◆ Develop funding request templates to expedite application submissions

◆ Identify and approach potential funding sources with project specific proposals, including collaborative

efforts with other agencies and organizations

◆ Explore crowd sourcing for preservation projects

Strategy 1.C.3: Strengthen current, and develop new, partnerships to collaborate on funding for common

interest preservation projects

Action items:

◆ Extend the current Section 106 programmatic agreement providing mitigation funding for the “FindIt”

field survey program in cooperation with USDA, RUS, and GTC

◆ Extend the current inter-agency agreement with GDOT to fund HPD staff to provide expedited reviews

of transportation-related Section 106 environmental review projects

◆ Identify other agencies and/or organizations where programmatic agreements or funding could

support review of projects and would be mutually beneficial

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

46

Goal 2: Build a Preservation Ethic

Objective 2.A: Increase public awareness of historic preservation and its benefits

Strategy 2.A.1: Enhance awareness of historic preservation through preservation partnerships

Action items:

◆ Educate Georgia communities about the benefits of the CLG program

◆ Expand the Centennial Farm constituency and programming in partnership with GFBF, GDAg, GFC,

and GNFA

◆ Sponsor the statewide historic preservation conference with GTHP and other public and private

organizations

◆ Sustain and expand GAAHPN

◆ Coordinate with GMA and the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at UGA to incorporate historic

preservation programs into community development strategies

Strategy 2.A.2: Build a larger, more diverse, constituency for archaeology

Action items:

◆ Participate in GDNR activities, including Coastfest and Weekend for Wildlife, that allow HPD to expose

the public to Georgia’s archaeological resources

◆ Develop and implement a public archaeology program that allows the public to participate in

archaeological investigations with professional archaeologists

◆ Increase educational efforts by contributing to SGA’s Archaeology Month

HPD participates annually in Georgia Department of Natural Resource events such as Weekend for Wildlife (shown) and Coastfest.

47

◆ Provide archaeology-related promotional and educational materials through HPD’s website and social

media outlets

◆ Continue involvement and support of SEAC(s) to highlight the archaeology of Georgia.

Strategy 2.A.3: Expand diversity in the constituency for preservation

Action items:

◆ Develop innovative outreach strategies that will enhance the appreciation and preservation of African

American historic properties in coordination with African American community leaders

◆ Coordinate with GAAHPN to develop and implement educational programs and special events,

including lectures, classroom engagements, and community and public meetings

◆ Identify partnership opportunities with Georgia’s network of historically black colleges and universities

◆ Increase circulation of GAAHPN’s Reflections publication

◆ Develop outreach strategies that include younger constituents – through schools, special programs,

or more general encouragement of community involvement in preservation

◆ Identify other under-represented groups, develop outreach strategies, and aid in developing

preliminary historic contexts to encourage their involvement in preservation

◆ Aid in establishing historic preservation commissions and CLGs in underserved areas of the state

◆ Target preservation projects in underserved areas of the state

Strategy 2.A.4: Expand the preservation constituency to include non-traditional partners

Action items:

◆ Investigate the linkage between core preservation tools and the larger issues of sustainability,

economic development and tourism, quality of life, community health, and education

◆ Sustain and expand preservation and archaeology awareness training for law enforcement agencies

◆ Utilize regional commissions to identify local, industry-based partners

Objective 2.B: Increase engagement of professionals, students, stakeholders, public officials, and the general

public in the preservation and use of historic properties

Strategy 2.B.1: Increase educational opportunities for students and professionals

in preservation-related disciplines

Action items:

◆ Expand internship opportunities with HPD for students in preservation-

related disciplines

◆ Identify student projects that will enhance information about historic

resources and help build a preservation ethic in partnership with Georgia

universities that offer courses and/or degrees in public history, historic

preservation, and archaeology

◆ Provide support for students and professionals to participate in the

statewide historic preservation conference

◆ Provide information about training opportunities for students in HPD’s

newsletters, website, and other social media

◆ Create publication opportunities for students in Preservation Posts and

Reflections publications

Contributing properties in the Twin City National Register Historic District, in Emanuel County.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

48

Strategy 2.B.2: Encourage the involvement of public officials in historic preservation

Action items:

◆ Utilize grants to support training needs for local historic preservation commission members and other

local staff

◆ Provide preservation education for elected and public officials on a regular basis through partnerships

with pertinent state and local authorities

◆ Support communications to inform and educate local officials regarding general historic preservation

practices and on-going preservation projects

HPD encourages the involvement of public officials in historic preservation. In 2017, HPD met with officials to inspect the Spring Run Bridge at Radium Springs, in Albany, and discuss its condition for use as part of a proposed Flint River Trails system.

49

Strategy 2.B.3: Encourage historic preservation planning at all levels of government

Action items:

◆ Provide guidance to communities about preservation planning through partnerships with GDCA,

Association County Commissioners of Georgia, GDA, and GMA

◆ Support the regional historic preservation planning program as an important and cost-effective way

of delivering preservation services to all areas of Georgia

◆ Establish better contact and coordination with the Georgia Emergency

Management Agency (GEMA) and FEMA to ensure that historic

and archaeological resources are taken into account in emergency

management plans

◆ Sustain and expand partnerships with GDCA’s Main Street program to

emphasize and publicize preservation projects in these communities

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“We have a historic museum right next to a railroad track that we use to display historic exhibits such a transportation, turn of the century barber shop with original chairs and utensils and other preserved exhibits and we continue to have this open to the public and bring spectators in to broaden their awareness of the history behind Grady County.”

Section II: Georgia’s Historic

and Archaeological Resources

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Defining Historic Properties

Georgia was founded in 1733 as one of the 13 original American colonies. Its history and landscape have been

shaped by the activities and interactions of three peoples: Americans of European decent, African Americans, and

Native Americans. For two centuries prior to English colonization, the Spanish with their African servants and slaves

explored what would later become Georgia. Yet, the presence of Europeans and Africans in the “New World” was

preceded by at least 12,000 of years of Native American occupation.

Thousands of years of human activities have left their mark all across the state. Not only in metropolitan areas,

where the signs of civilization are everywhere, but also in the most remote mountain valleys, along and in rivers and

streams, across vast stretches of field and forest, deep in seemingly inaccessible swamps, on coastal marshes and

islands, even underwater along the coast – there is hardly an acre of Georgia untouched by the past.

What Makes a Property “Historic?”

Physical evidence of Georgia’s history takes the form of buildings, structures, and objects, historic and archaeological

sites, historic landscapes, traditional cultural places, and historic districts – these are Georgia’s historic properties.

Preserving these historic properties, and their associated history, is the goal of historic preservation. To be considered

“historic,” a property must have three essential attributes: sufficient age, a relatively high degree of physical integrity,

and historical significance, according to the NPS.

53

AgeA property must be “old enough” to be considered historic. Generally speaking, a property must be at least 50 years

old, although this standard is just a rule of thumb. Another way of looking at it is that a property must be old enough

that study of it by historians, architectural historians, or archaeologists makes its place in history clear. This latter

perspective allows some types of properties that are less than 50 years old to be considered “historic.”

Integrity In addition to having sufficient age, a property must retain its historic physical integrity. For a building, structure,

landscape feature, site, or district, a property must be relatively unchanged. Its essential character-defining features,

with respect to its historic significance, must still be present. For an archaeological site, integrity means that the site

must be, to a large degree, undisturbed with its patterns and layers of artifacts and other archaeological evidence

relatively intact. For a traditional cultural place, integrity means that the site must be recognizable to today’s affiliated

cultural group, demonstrated through tradition, and still used or revered in some way.

Significance Finally, and most importantly, a property must be significant to be considered historic.

Significance is defined in three ways: (1) through direct association with individuals,

events, activities, or developments that shaped our history or that reflect important

aspects of our history; (2) by embodying the distinctive physical and spatial characteristics

of an identified architectural style or type of building, structure, landscape, or planned

environment, or a method of construction, or by embodying high artistic values or

fine craftsmanship; or (3) by having the potential to yield information important to

our understanding of the past through archaeological, architectural, or other physical

investigation and analysis.

How Do We Decide What is Historic?

Each of us may have our own personal opinions about what makes a property historic. Similarly, different social

and cultural groups may have different definitions of “historic.” Other groups may look at historic properties in

entirely different ways or may not value them at all. An important part of historic preservation is establishing public

processes to determine what is historic and what is not. Once these determinations have been made, they become

public preservation policy. There are several established ways in Georgia of publicly determining whether properties

are historic and worthy of preservation.

The Georgia Post building, in Knoxville, Crawford County, was constructed in 1928, and listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2013 for its historical significance.

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“I believe over-development and new construction is the biggest threat to historic buildings and landscapes.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

54

National Register of Historic PlacesOne of the most important ways in which we determine which properties are historic is through the NRHP. Since its

creation by an act of Congress in 1966, the National Register has been one of the foundations of historic preservation

across the country and in Georgia. It provides uniform standards, a public process, and a national perspective for

determining the significance and preservation worthiness of properties. Although the criteria for determining NRHP

eligibility are essentially unchanged since 1966, their interpretation and application to properties are continuously

clarified and updated through published guidance, bulletins, and precedent-setting National Register listings.

Listing in the NRHP or determining NRHP eligibility are among the clearest statements of public policy about what

is historic and worthy of being preserved.

At the present time there are more than 2,133 Georgia properties listed in the NRHP encompassing more than

82,601 historic properties in the state. Historic properties in Georgia are being added to the National Register at the

rate of approximately 15 listings, representing nearly 1,000 historic properties, per year. Traditionally, Georgia has

ranked in the top 10 states in the nation in the number of National Register-listed properties.

Georgia Register of Historic PlacesEstablished in 1989, the Georgia Register of Historic Places (GRHP) is our state’s companion to the NRHP. Modeled

closely after the National Register, the Georgia Register is Georgia’s official statewide list of historic properties worthy

of preservation. Properties listed in the National Register are automatically listed in the Georgia Register.

Local DesignationsAnother important way of determining the significance of properties in Georgia is through local landmark or historic

district designation. Under the provisions of the Georgia Historic Preservation Act of 1980, local governments

can pass ordinances that specify standards and procedures for naming historic properties in their jurisdictions.

Criteria and designations may vary from community to community, reflecting local conditions, needs, goals, and

prerogatives. At the present time, more than 140 local governments in Georgia have established local historic

preservation commissions or have designated local historic landmarks or districts.

Section 106 Environmental ReviewsThe same act that created the National Register also established that federal

agencies are required to take into account the effects of their undertakings on

properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register. A national

review process established by the federal ACHP, Section 106 prescribes the method

by which these agencies carry out this legal responsibility and part of the process

includes consulting with the state historic preservation office to determine if

properties in the project areas are listed or eligible for listing in the National

Register. Interested parties and the general public are also invited to comment.

This public process identifies hundreds of historic properties each year in Georgia.

PlanningAnother way that local communities can define their historic properties is through

local comprehensive development plans. As required by the 1989 Georgia

Planning Act, local plans must include consideration of historic properties. These

The Smith-Manning House, in Cobb County, is a good example of a Georgian-plan house with Greek Revival elements that was “updated” in the 1880s. The house reflects two major historic periods of development. The Smith-Manning House was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2014.

55

plans provide an opportunity for communities to make a public statement about what they consider historic and

worthy of being preserved. Other local land use tools, including zoning, sign, and tree ordinances, can be used to

delineate or designate historic properties.

How Are Properties Determined to Be Historic?

Although there are several different ways of determining whether properties are historic, all of these processes share

three fundamental steps:

The first step consists of gathering information about a specific property, including a

physical description and historical documentation. Maps, plans, and photographs

supplement this information.

The second step involves putting the individual property in its place in history or its

context. Documenting what role it played in our history, ascertaining what it might

tell us about the past, and determining if it is a good and representative example of an

architectural style or building type are all important components to this step. Comparing

and contrasting the resource to similar properties, to historically related properties, or to

other properties in the same vicinity aids in this process. Determining how the property

relates to the distinctive aspects of Georgia’s history and how well it retains the character-

defining features of its building type or architectural style are important. Formal studies

called “historic contexts,” prepared according to NPS standards, provide information by

which to determine whether or not a property is historic.

The third step consists of applying criteria for evaluation to the property and what is known about it. The NRHP’s

Criteria for Evaluation, or the designation standards found in a local historic preservation ordinance, are commonly

used to measure the significance of a historic property.

Each step of the process involves public input and participation along with professional involvement. Taken together,

these three steps constitute the basic methodology for determining the significance of properties.

Conclusion

As can be seen, the identification of historic properties is a process that involves many components and

characteristics of a property. It can be completed through multiple routes, including regulatory, survey, planning,

and others. While the process is something that can be completed by anyone, it may help to involve experienced

consultants, including historians, archaeologists or other Secretary of the Interior’s qualified professionals. HPD, of

course, can also be used as a resource for technical assistance and guidance through the NRHP, regulatory, survey,

or other processes.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“I’m a researcher. I advance historic preservation in Georgia by sharing what I’ve learned with my immediate neighborhood residents, with adjacent neighborhoods, through seminars, discussion groups with digital historical information.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Georgia’s Historic Resources

As defined by the NRHP, historic resources include buildings, structures, objects, sites, or districts. Buildings are

created mainly to shelter human activity and include houses, community landmarks, and commercial, agricultural,

or industrial buildings. The term can also refer to groups of related buildings, such as a house and outbuilding or

courthouse and jail. Structures are defined by the NRHP as “functional constructions made usually for purposes

other than creating shelter.” Objects are works that are largely artistic in nature or are small and simple. Objects are

typically associated with a specific setting or environment although some may be movable, by nature or design. A

site is defined as “the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or

structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological

value regardless of the value of any existing structure.” Districts, on the other hand, are a combination of some or

all of the above buildings, structures, sites, and objects where the overall grouping – the ensemble – takes on an

identity and significance apart from its individual components. All of these types of historic resources can be found

in Georgia.

Buildings

Georgia’s historic buildings include a wide variety of houses, stores and offices, factories and mills, outbuildings on

farms and plantations, and community landmarks such as courthouses, churches, and schools.

57

About one quarter of historic buildings in Georgia are located in the state’s larger urban areas, about one quarter are

in smaller cities and towns, another quarter are in the state’s mid-20th-century suburbs, and the remaining quarter

are dispersed across rural areas.

An estimated five percent of Georgia’s historic buildings date from the antebellum period (pre-1861) and even less

date from the Reconstruction period (1865-1877). About one-third of the state’s historic buildings date from the

New South era (1877-1919) with its prosperous cotton agricultural and industrial economy. Another third date from

the period between World Wars I and II (1917-1945), with the greatest number dating from the 1920s and fewer from

the Great Depression years. The remainder of Georgia’s historic buildings, approximately 25 percent, date from World

War II to the 1960s, but this number is continuously increasing as more mid-20th-century buildings become 50 years

of age or older and thereby cross the general age threshold at which most resources can be considered historic.

Houses Houses are the most prevalent type of historic building in Georgia. They make up approximately 80 percent of all

existing historic buildings. Houses range from large, high-style mansions to small, plain vernacular dwellings. The

oldest, well-documented house in Georgia is the Rock House in McDuffie County, built in 1786, although Wild

Heron Plantation, outside Savannah, may predate it by three decades. The newest historic houses in Georgia are

mid-20th-century ranch and split-level houses like those in the Northwoods Historic District on the northeast side

of Atlanta in DeKalb County, which was listed in the National Register in 2015. Another mid-20th-century house, the

split-foyer type, has been recognized and documented during the past five years. New variants of types continue

to be discovered, such as the A-frame split level, found during the completion of a National Register nomination for

the Northcrest Historic District. As a result of the nomination of the Huntley Hills Historic District in DeKalb County,

Small towns such as Twin City in Emanuel County can contain a wide variety of historic resources. (Left) This International Style house retains its distinctive style and materials. (Right) The twin gables of this central-hallway cottage are common stylistic elements in Twin City.

(Left) The Northwoods Historic District in DeKalb County contains many examples of split-level and ranch houses. (Right) One of the new house types discovered recently is the A-frame split-level house. This example is located in the Northcrest Historic District in DeKalb County.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

a new two-story, mid-20th-century traditional house type has been formally identified. The most

common type of 19th-century house in the state is the Georgian cottage, and the most numerous

types of historic houses in the state overall are early 20th-century front-gabled bungalows and

mid-20th-century ranch houses. In Georgia, house types are largely identified using the statewide

context, Georgia’s Living Places: Historic Houses and Their Landscaped Settings.

Commercial BuildingsCommercial buildings, including stores, offices, and other places of business, are the second most

numerous type of historic building in the state, but they comprise only about seven percent of

Georgia’s historic buildings. Most of them tend to be concentrated in communities, often forming

cohesive business districts or “downtowns,” although some, like the country store, are found in

sparsely settled rural areas and others, like the corner store, are situated in residential neighborhoods.

Common commercial buildings include one- to three-story small-town “storefront” buildings, larger

city business blocks, and urban skyscrapers.

Industrial Buildings Industrial buildings are relatively rare in Georgia, constituting only two percent of all surveyed

buildings, yet they represent some of the largest, most highly engineered, and most economically

important historic buildings in the state. They include factories, textile, grist and saw mills, warehouses,

cotton gins, ice and power plants, and loft-type manufacturing buildings. In many smaller Georgia

cities, a distinctive form of self-contained community, the mill village, is found around some industrial

buildings, which are usually late 19th- and early 20th-century textile mills. Rural gristmills with their

dams and millponds often are located in isolated areas near sources of waterpower.

Community Landmark Buildings Community landmark buildings are a small, but diverse, group of important historic buildings that

housed institutions such as local governments, religious groups, civic organizations, and schools

or served important community functions, such as railroad transportation. Examples include

courthouses, city halls, post offices, churches and other places of worship, lodges, clubhouses,

theaters, auditoriums, gymnasiums, libraries, jails, hospitals, fire stations, depots, and community

centers. Although they account for only five percent of all historic buildings, community landmark

buildings are prominent due to their large size, architectural distinction, strategic locations,

community functions, and historical associations. They are often focal points in their communities.

Agricultural Buildings Agricultural buildings are found in most areas of the state, usually grouped with other buildings,

structures, and landscape features on farms or plantations. They typically include farmhouses, tenant

farmhouses, barns and sheds, storage and processing buildings, detached kitchens, smokehouses,

blacksmith shops, and offices. Historically, agriculture dominated land use in the state and agricultural

buildings were widespread across the entire state. Today, they are relatively rare and have virtually

disappeared in more urbanized areas of the state.

The Sears, Roebuck and Co. building on Ponce de Leon Avenue in Atlanta, Fulton County is an excellent example of a large commercial building that was successfully rehabilitated using historic preservation tax credits.

Liberty Baptist Church in Grooverville, Brooks County is an excellent example of a mid-19th-century rural church.

59

Structures

Common kinds of historic structures in Georgia include water towers, wells, windmills, agricultural outbuildings such

as corncribs or silos, fortifications, bridges, icehouses, power plants, railroads, and roads. Other familiar structures

include lighthouses, tunnels, dams, and bandstands. Historic structures also include railroad locomotives and other

rolling stock, as well as ships, boats, and other watercraft.

Another kind of historic structure, less commonly recognized, is the structured environment, which is a large-scale,

two-dimensional plan or pattern that underlies historic development. Historic structured environments include city

plans, courthouse squares, agricultural field patterns, land-lot lines, suburban subdivisions, and the layout of parks,

gardens, cemeteries, and yards.

Objects

Objects are similar to, but smaller than, structures.

Outdoor sculpture, monuments, boundary

markers, statuary, and fountains are examples

of historic objects. Georgia does not have many

NRHP-listed resources that are strictly objects,

but some examples include a mausoleum at a

cemetery, the cyclorama, and the railroad’s zero

milepost in downtown Atlanta.

Sites

There are several different types of sites in Georgia that range from precontact archaeological sites to Victorian

Gardens. A site does not have to have physical above ground structures or remains, but could include natural

features or buried cultural materials.

Archaeological Sites Archaeological sites, both precontact and historic, are the most numerous, although not the most visible, type

of site in Georgia. A wide variety of archaeological sites exist in Georgia. Some are “stratified” sites, with various

layers representing different periods of occupation and use. Other complex

sites include the locations of precontact villages and towns with distinct civic,

religious, residential, and even industrial areas. Less complex sites may represent

a single activity or use, such as hunting or fishing, manufacturing or quarrying,

agriculture, or camping. Major river valleys, ridgelines, and the Fall Line have

yielded the greatest numbers of archaeological sites. Less-well-known sites are

being found underwater, on river bottoms, in coastal marshes, and off the coast

on the continental shelf (see “Georgia’s Archaeological Resources” section for

more information).

Historic Sites Historic sites are places where an event or activity took place but where there

were no buildings or structures associated with the event or activity or where

the associated buildings or structures no longer exist. Historic sites are important

A common type of historic site in Georgia is a battlefield, primarily those associated with the Civil War, such as the Union Field Fortifications at Henderson Road in Cobb County, listed in the National Register in 2015.

Utoy Cemetery in Atlanta, Fulton County, listed in the National Register in 2015, has a collection of grave markers that are representative of early 19th- to mid-20th-century funerary monuments.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

60

primarily for the events or activities that took place there, although significant archaeological resources also may be

present. Historic sites may have distinctive natural features, such as a mountain, cave, or tree, or they may simply be

the place where something important happened, such as an open field where a military engagement took place.

The most commonly recognized type of historic site in Georgia is the battlefield.

Traditional Cultural Places Traditional cultural places are sites that have distinct historic value

to a specific racial, ethnic, or cultural group and that continue to

play a vital role in contemporary cultural life. Such sites may be

natural places, such as a mountain top, or historic environments,

such as an ethnic neighborhood, or they may be simply a revered

spatial location or special place. The value of a traditional cultural

place is demonstrated through tradition, oral history, continuing

traditional uses or practices, or common cultural knowledge. An

important difference between traditional cultural places and other

types of historic properties is that the traditional cultural place derives its primary significance, not from its physical,

structural, or archaeological features, but rather from its direct and continuing associations with important historic

cultural beliefs, customs, or practices of a living community. Traditional cultural places already documented in

Georgia include the Ocmulgee Old Fields in Macon-Bibb County, New Echota in Calhoun County, and Taylors Creek

and Pleasant Grove Cemeteries within the boundaries of Fort Stewart.

Landscapes Georgia’s historic landscapes range from small formal gardens to vast expanses of agricultural countryside. Examples

include courthouse squares (often the largest public landscape space in a community), city parks, streetscapes

with street trees and sidewalks, cemeteries (ranging from the formal and park-like to the vernacular), institutional

landscaping, like college campuses or vacation resorts, and state parks. Farmsteads are another important landscape

in Georgia with field systems, woodlands, orchards and groves, hedgerows, fences, field terraces, and roadways. Still

other types of landscapes in Georgia include cemeteries and golf courses. Many of the largest historic landscapes in

the state are found in state parks and public and private conservation areas that were developed to reclaim worn-

out agricultural and timberlands while providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Yards are a well-documented

example of a historic landscape. Fifteen major forms of historic “domestic” landscapes dating from the 18th century

to the mid-20th century have been identified through the Georgia’s Living Places context.

(Left) The Bowden Golf Course in Macon, Bibb County was listed in the National Register in 2015 for its landscape design, which has remained unchanged since its 1940 completion. (Right) Hard Labor Creek State Park, located in Morgan and Walton counties, was built in the 1930s by the Civilian Conservation Corps workers.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Continue to educate everyone about the benefits of historic preservation.”

61

Historic Districts

The most common type of historic district in Georgia is the residential

neighborhood, while the downtown central business district is a close second.

The Lithonia Historic District in DeKalb County, listed in the National Register

in 2016, comprises an entire historic community. Other equally important, but

less numerous, types of historic districts include industrial and warehousing

areas, school campuses, military installations, parks, and waterfronts. Farms

with houses, outbuildings, and field systems can also comprise a historic

district. Georgia has several vast archaeological districts, such as the Etowah

Valley, and several large rural historic districts containing multiple farms,

rural communities, and historic rural landscapes, such as the Sautee and

Nacoochee valleys in White County and the Johnstonville-Goggins Historic

District in Lamar and Monroe counties. The largest historic district in Georgia,

in terms of acreage, is McLemore Cove in Walker County with 50,141 acres; the

largest historic districts in terms of numbers of contributing historic resources

are Kirkwood with 1,788 in DeKalb County and Collier Heights with 1,757

contributing resources in Fulton County. The smallest historic district in Georgia

is a row of three shotgun houses along a street in Americus, Sumter County –

all that remains of a once-extensive historic African American neighborhood.

African American

Historic properties associated with African Americans form a distinct subset of the state’s historic properties. A large

population of African Americans have lived in Georgia since the late 18th century, making important contributions

to the state’s history and culture. Overall, the pattern of historic properties associated with African Americans in

Georgia is similar to the statewide profile in terms of types of buildings and periods of development. However,

significant differences distinguish African American historic properties from other historic properties.

The primary difference is that there are fewer extant historic properties associated with African Americans. African

Americans historically made up approximately one-third of the state’s population. However, less than one-tenth

of the state’s historic properties are known to be directly associated with African Americans. Part of this disparity

is due to the fact that many historic properties associated with African American history have been lost through

demolition, neglect, or replacement. Additionally, until recently, extant historic properties with African American

associations have not been well documented. However, with continuing advances in historical research, more

historic properties associated with Georgia’s African American heritage are being documented.

There are also differences in the relative numbers of the different types of extant historic buildings associated with

African Americans. Houses constitute a smaller percentage of recognized, documented historic resources, while

community landmark buildings make up a larger percentage. Two-thirds of African American community landmark

buildings are churches, yet they comprise one-half of the community landmark buildings statewide. There are

also many African American historic schools documented. However, very few historic African American owned-

and-operated farms have been documented, although a number are represented in National Register listings

and Centennial Farm designations. Conversely, many farms and plantations in the Piedmont, Coastal Plain, and

Coastal regions were worked and even managed by enslaved African Americans prior to the Civil War and by African

American tenant farmers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but relatively few associated buildings and

structures remain.

Developed between 1942 and 1954, the Pine Gardens neighborhood in Savannah was initially constructed for defense workers in the shipbuilding industry during World War II. The district contains many examples of the American Small House, an affordable housing type popular beginning in the 1930s.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

62

The environmental setting of Georgia’s African American historic properties also differs from the statewide profile.

Compared to all cities in Georgia, more African American sites are in urban areas, with fewer sites located in rural

areas. African American sites are rare in suburban areas – the city of Atlanta is an exception with its extraordinary

collection of 20th-century African American suburbs stretching westward from the Atlanta University Center to

Collier Heights. Another difference reflects settlement patterns established under the system of legalized racial

segregation of the late 19th century. In many communities, all African American historic

properties are situated in the same relatively small area. As a result, large and small

houses, community landmarks and places of work, industries and recreational facilities,

comprise a distinctive community that is different from white-occupied historic areas

where “zoning,” whether by ordinance or practice, tended to separate different land uses

and building types. In rural areas, many African American houses are clustered in hamlets,

sometimes with a small country store and occasionally a church and school.

There are significant differences in the architectural characteristics of houses associated

with African Americans. The percentage of vernacular houses is much higher, and there

is a greater prevalence of smaller house types and forms such as shotguns, hall-parlor

houses, double pens, and saddlebag-type houses. The smaller, less-adorned structures

yield important insight into the African American experience in Georgia.

Founded by a biracial board of trustees for African American students in 1882, Paine College in Augusta, Richmond County, was listed in the National Register in 2012.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“I am a native of Georgia and have lived in the state my whole life. I developed an interest in Historic Preservation as a teenager and have been involved in numerous aspects of preservation for 30+ years. We must preserve that which we consider significant for future generations to experience and enjoy.”

63

With regard to historic landscapes, distinctive traditions associated with African Americans date from the antebellum

period through the mid-20th century and differ from non-African American landscapes. However, these African

American associations are not well documented in existing surveys. African American landscapes, characterized

by strong cultural associations and symbolic meanings, rather than visual aesthetics, have recently begun to be

recognized. In contrast, documented African American landscapes, such as the swept yard, have virtually disappeared.

Conclusion

With all of the defined types of historic resources, it is no wonder that Georgia contains a vast array of important and

irreplaceable historic places. While some resources are more prevalent that others, that does not necessarily mean

that those types of resources are scarce or non-existent, rather that type may not have been fully documented and

surveyed to date. From the vast amount of buildings and sites to the less common structures and districts to the

rare number of objects in the state – each is important in telling the story of Georgia’s history from Native American

to modern day.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Georgia’s Archaeological Resources

Georgia has a rich human history that began at least 12,000 years ago. Written records have existed since European

contact, yet approximately 96 percent of Georgia’s past is unrecorded. Archaeological research provides one way

of uncovering this unwritten history. Archaeology is the study of humans and their closest ancestors through the

material remains they have left behind.

There are a myriad of types of archaeological sites in Georgia. Precontact archaeological sites range from

monumental earthen mounds and platforms separated by broad open plazas, low shell middens in the form of

piles and rings, rock quarries, fishing weirs, rock piles, scatters of stone tools, concentrations of broken pottery,

house sites, and villages. Historic archaeological sites include Revolutionary and Civil War earthworks, industrial

sites, refuse dumps, “dead” towns, Spanish mission sites along the coast, agricultural sites, including antebellum

plantations and Depression-era tenant farms, and buried evidence of former buildings, structures, and landscape

features. Underwater archaeological sites include prehistoric fish weirs, American Indian dugout canoes, colonial

wharf complexes, ferry landings, and shipwrecks. Cemeteries and individual graves can also be considered as

archaeological sites, although state and federal laws protecting burial sites severely, and understandably, restrict

their archaeological investigation.

The primary means of accessing this past is through excavation or “digging” a site. Depending on the site and the

conditions, archaeologists may choose from many different tools ranging from dental picks and paint brushes to

backhoes or other heavy equipment. What does not change between excavations is the note taking and recording

65

that takes place. Excavation is an inherently destructive process that destroys the archaeological record as the data

are collected. Therefore, it is important to record as much as possible for future researchers, including taking careful

notes about each artifact’s location or provenience. Provenience is the term used to describe an artifact’s exact

location and its relationship to other artifacts. Most individual artifacts are not that informative by themselves. What

allows archaeologists to reconstruct the stories of past people are the complicated relationships of one artifact to

another. If these artifacts are removed from the ground without careful excavation and recordation, this information

is lost forever.

However, the real work starts after the excavation is over. Laboratory work, including

cleaning, analyzing, stabilizing, cataloguing, and storing the artifacts usually takes

three to four times as long as the time spent digging and in special cases, can take

much longer. Once the artifacts are safely cleaned and stored, archaeologists have an

obligation to report on the excavations in order to make the information available to

the public and other archaeologists.

People are frequently organized by their time periods, creating a series of categories

containing cultures with similar traits. Though not perfect, these periods provide

a starting point to discuss the commonalities and differences both within and

between different time periods.

Precontact Periods

Paleoindian Period The first unequivocal evidence of humans in the southeastern US dates to around

the end of the last ice age about 13,000 years before the present (BP) and is termed

the Paleoindian Period. This period is associated with a distinctive type of projectile

point known as the Clovis point, named after the town in New Mexico where it was

first identified. Compared to later time periods, little is known about the Paleoindians.

They were hunter-gatherers who lived most of the year in relatively small groups of

perhaps 25 to 50 individuals. Some evidence suggests large animals like mastodons

and mammoths were an important food resource, though a wide array of plants and

smaller game like deer, rabbits, and squirrels were probably also important. No large

intact Paleoindian sites have been located in Georgia, but Clovis Period projectile

points have been recovered from across the state. The presence of these points

indicates Paleoindian people were present in Georgia around 13,000 BP but the total

population may have been small.

Archaic Period By around 10,000 BP, large animals such as bison, horses, mastodons, mammoths, and camels disappeared from the

region and the early inhabitants of Georgia continued to refine their lifeways to fit the changing environmental and

social conditions. These changes are viewed as the beginning of the Archaic Period which lasted from approximately

10,000 to 3,000 BP. These 7,000 years are typically sub-divided into three sub-periods: the Early, Middle, and Late

Archaic.

Archaeologist working at the Camp Lawton Civil War prison site in Millen record measurements.

(Left) Drawing of a Clovis point recovered during excavations at the Macon Plateau in 1935, indicative of the Early Paleoindian subperiod (Courtesy of University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology) and (Right) a Kirk Corner Notched spear point, a type indicative of the Early Archaic period (Courtesy of the Peach State Archaeological Society).

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

66

Life during the Early Archaic (10,000 to 8,000 BP) was probably much the same as it had been during the Paleoindian

Period. People still lived in small groups and remained quite mobile, periodically moving across the landscape to

find food and to meet and trade with other groups. Early Archaic sites are identified by the presence of diagnostic

(i.e. distinctively shaped) stone tools, including spear points and scrapers that may have been used to prepare hides.

People still ate large game like white-tailed deer, black bear, and turkey, as well as turtles, fish, shellfish, birds, and

smaller mammals. They also harvested wild nuts, roots, fruits, seeds, and berries. Like the Paleoindian Period, Early

Archaic sites are rare in Georgia.

The Middle Archaic Period lasted from about 8,000 to 5,000 BP. The beginning of the Middle Archaic

Period is marked by environmental change as the climate became drier and warmer in some areas

of the southeastern US. Middle Archaic sites are often identified by the presence of distinctive spear

points. Based on the local stone that Middle Archaic people were using to make their tools, they

traveled less or had smaller trade networks. As their movement and/or trade were reduced, regional

cultures may have developed. During this period, people continued to rely on a broad range of food

resources, probably still moving through their territory on a seasonal basis as certain foods became

available. No large Middle Archaic habitation sites have been found in Georgia, but small sites are

common in upland settings throughout the Piedmont.

The Late Archaic Period lasted from about 5,000 to 3,000 BP. During this time, trends that began in

the Early and Middle Archaic grew and matured. During the Late Archaic, population size probably

increased. At the same time, territories continued to shrink and people constructed more permanent

settlements. Late Archaic sites are often identified by large stemmed projectile points, cooking slabs

made of soapstone, atlatl weights, grooved stone axes, and metates (grinding stones). Another

important marker of the Late Archaic Period is fiber tempered pottery. The earliest pottery in the New

World was invented on the South Carolina and Georgia coasts during this period. This pottery often

had Spanish moss or palmetto fiber added to the clay to strengthen it – when the vessels were fired,

the fiber burned away leaving distinctive marks in the pottery.

Additionally, Late Archaic people made extensive use of aquatic resources and their sites often

contain large piles of shell. Their use of freshwater shellfish is evident at the Stallings Island site

located on an island in the Savannah River north of Augusta. The Stallings Island site consists of a

two-acre accumulation of freshwater mussel shells, sometimes over 10 feet deep, with other food

remains, pit features, pottery, and artifacts. The Sapelo Island shell ring is an example of a coastal shell

construction. The Sapelo Island shell ring is actually the largest of three rings located on the island.

While archaeologists do not know why or how these ring-shaped structures form, the food remains

recovered suggest Late Archaic people used them year round. They may be the result of ring-shaped

villages or communal feasting events. Either way, the rings likely reflect a more complex level of social

organization than in the earlier periods.

Woodland Period During the Woodland Period (3,000 to 1,100 BP) people continued to refine developments that

began during the preceding Late Archaic Period. The pottery became lighter and stronger, people

continued to become more settled and lead less mobile lives, and their societies continued to increase

in complexity. The Woodland Period is also sub-divided into three parts: Early, Middle, and Late.

A section of the largest Late Archaic shell ring of the Sapelo Shell Ring Complex. Late Archaic shell rings are circular and semicircular deposits of shell, bone, soil, and artifacts.

67

The Early Woodland Period lasted from about 3,000 to 2,300 BP. During this time, people lived in villages of around

50 individuals. The villages had more permanent structures, although the inhabitants probably still moved on a

seasonal basis, returning to the site year after year. Sites from this period are recognized by the pottery, which is

often decorated with impressions from wooden paddles that were carved or wrapped with fabric. While direct

evidence from Georgia is lacking, cultivation of plants increased in other parts of the Southeast during this period.

Early Woodland people practiced small-scale horticulture, growing starchy seed plants like goosefoot, maygrass,

knotweed, and sunflower. These plants formed a small but important portion of their diet.

The Middle Woodland Period dates from 2,300 to 1,400 BP and marks a time of profound

political change. Villages continued to grow larger and more permanent. They were

often circular and built around a central plaza. Trade appears to have increased as loosely

knit, but far ranging, trade networks moved exotic goods like galena and copper from

the Midwest to the South and seashells from the Gulf Coast to the Midwest. During this

period, ceramics became more refined and decoration techniques and designs became

more ornate than during the Early Woodland. These designs were impressed into the

exterior of the pottery with elaborately carved wooden paddles.

Horticulture increased in importance and maize was introduced throughout the

Southeast. However, maize cultivation appears to have been less common in Georgia

during this period and did not constitute a significant portion of the diet. There is also

evidence people began to clear Georgia’s forests to make way for crops during this

period.

Rock and earthen mounds first began to appear in Georgia during

the Middle Woodland Period. These mounds were usually cone-

shaped and were used to bury the dead, but some were flat-topped

and might have functioned as stages for ceremonies. The Kolomoki

site in southwest Georgia is the largest Middle Woodland settlement

discovered in Georgia. The site originally included at least eight flat-

topped mounds, seven of which are preserved. Kolomoki is the oldest

example of this type of mound in the Southeast and foreshadows

the size and complexity of sites during the later Mississippian Period.

During the Late Woodland Period (1,400 to 1,100 BP), many trends

of the preceding periods may have reversed. Mound building

decreased, as did long distance trade. Maize cultivation appears to

have increased as this crop became increasingly important in North

Georgia during this period. The bow and arrow were introduced

during this period and the smaller distinctive chipped stone

arrowheads are often used to identify sites from this period. Warfare

may have increased as a result of the bow and arrow, as shown by the

construction of fortified villages. People lived in small settlements of

about 20 houses with the exception of larger fortified sites.

A Kolomoki temple mound at Kolomoki Mounds State Park, in Blakely. Photo Courtesy of Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites.

What do you consider are the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five years?“The effects of and potential for natural hazard on our important resources.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

68

Mississippian Period The Mississippian Period in Georgia dates from about 1,200 to 400 BP and was a time of tremendous population

growth. During the Mississippian Period, most people were farmers who lived in small villages and hamlets spread

along rivers, with seldom more than 100 inhabitants in a village. Their societies were parts of chiefdoms, with clear

distinctions between commoners and elites. Mississippian people constructed ceremonial centers with large flat-

topped earthen mounds where hundreds would gather and sometimes live. Research has shown that these mounds

were strongly linked to chiefs who lived on them, performed rituals, and buried their dead. Smaller Mississippian

sites are easily recognizable by their small triangular projectile points and their distinctive pottery styles, which

include stamping, incising, and pinched rims. Like the preceding Archaic and Woodland Periods, the Mississippian is

sub-divided into three periods: Early, Middle, and Late.

During the Early Mississippian Period, which lasted from about 1,200 to 900 BP, the first chiefdoms developed in

the state. Ocmulgee National Monument is an excellent example of an Early Mississippian mound center. Pottery

recovered from the site shows that emigrants from what is now Tennessee or farther west occupied the site just

outside of modern day Macon, Georgia. They built mounds, council chambers, and defensive works during their

300-year occupation of the area. The site has been designated a National Monument and visitors can view the

remains of a council house floor that was excavated by archaeologists and enclosed for viewing.

By the Middle Mississippian Period (900 to 650 BP), powerful chiefs ruled much of Georgia from large centers with

mounds and palisades. One of the largest and most impressive examples of a chiefdom capital is the Etowah site,

located near Cartersville in northwestern Georgia. The site contains six earthen mounds, the highest of which rises

60 feet above the surrounding floodplain. A large town encircled the mounds. The village was protected by a large

Etowah Indian mound at Etowah Indian Mounds State Park, in Bartow County.

69

moat and palisade with regular-spaced towers along its length. The site is now owned by the State of Georgia and

managed by GDNR, which also maintains a museum on the site.

During the Late Mississippian Period, which lasted from about 650 to 400 BP, the large chiefdoms had lost much

of their power and splintered into small chiefdoms more evenly distributed along Georgia’s waterways. These

chiefdoms were in turn ruled by a few powerful paramount chiefdoms that controlled hundreds of linear miles

of river, perhaps encompassing up to seven smaller chiefdoms. During this period, the Native people of Georgia

first came in contact with Europeans as Spaniard Hernando de Soto and his army traveled through the Southeast.

Natives were devastated by European diseases against which they had no defense. Additionally, the desire for new

European goods and their participation in the deer skin trade caused entire populations to relocate to be near

European settlements. Disease and population movements destabilized the remaining chiefdoms and hastened

their dissolution, bringing an end to the Mississippian Period.

Historic Periods

Early European Colonization After de Soto’s exploration between 1539 and 1542, the Spanish began to take a greater interest in Georgia. They

built a mission on St. Catherine’s Island in 1566, which was part of the Guale Mission Province along the South

Atlantic Coast, to convert Native peoples to Catholicism. The mission, Santa Catalina de Guale, included a friary,

church, and kitchen, which were surrounded by a defensive palisade. The mission was burned in 1597 and rebuilt

before it was eventually abandoned. The site was the subject of a large-scale archaeological excavation during the

1980s, which produced a wealth of information about the effects of the Mission system on Native Americans.

The British were the first to establish European settlements within what would become

Georgia. In 1733, General James Oglethorpe and a group of colonists traveled south

from Charleston and settled the city that would become Savannah after negotiating

a treaty with the Yamacraw Native Americans who occupied the area. The British

settled Georgia’s coastal region to act as a buffer between Spanish Florida and

British settlements in South Carolina by establishing a series of fortifications south of

Savannah. Among these were Fort King George in Darian, now operated by GDNR, and

Fort Frederica National Monument on Saint Simons Island, now operated by NPS. Both

of these sites are interpreted and open to the public.

American Revolution and the Growth of Agriculture After the colony was settled, it continued to grow and prosper. In 1777, Georgia joined with the rest of the Colonies

and sent representatives to the Continental Congress. In 1778, the British tried to retake Georgia, but succeeded only

in occupying Savannah. There are many well-known sites significant to the Revolutionary War in Georgia. Examples

include the town of New Ebenezer, Kettle Creek Battlefield, and Brier Creek Battlefield. After the war, the economy

began to recover and plantations resumed their business. After the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton

started to replace rice as Georgia’s most important crop. After Sea Island cotton was introduced in 1786, cotton

plantations were built on the coast. One example is Cannon’s Point on St. Catherine’s Island. Cannon’s Point was

a large plantation and has been the subject of a great deal of archaeological inquiry providing some of the first

archaeological data about enslaved peoples in a plantation setting.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?“Preserving sites and buildings in Georgia is important to me because future generations need to know about the history of their area.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

70

Civil War Cotton and the plantation system continued to be an important part of the Georgia economy until the Civil War. Fort

Pulaski, east of Savannah along Georgia’s coast, came under attack in 1862, but Georgia saw relatively little action

until the Battle of Chickamauga in 1863. As Sherman assumed command of the Union forces and began his advance

on Atlanta and eventually the sea beyond, the Confederacy fought a series of delaying battles including the Battles

of Kennesaw Mountain, Resaca, and Pickett’s Mill. Many of the sites of large battles are now federally owned, such

as Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, or are state historic sites, such as Resaca, Pickett’s Mill, and Fort

McAllister. Important archaeological investigations have occurred at these sites, providing further information to

support firsthand accounts from the battles.

In addition to battlefields, Georgia also had POW camps like Andersonville and Camp Lawton.

Andersonville, now a National Historic Site, was a Confederate POW camp built in 1864, in

southwest Georgia. The camp was designed to house 10,000 Union prisoners but was soon filled

with over 30,000 men. As the population increased, a shortage of supplies and the unsanitary

conditions within the prison led to the death of over 13,000 men. In 1998, a POW museum was

constructed on the site, which commemorates all American POWs.

Camp Lawton was another Confederate POW camp that was constructed to help relieve some

of the burden at Andersonville. The prison was only in use for approximately six weeks prior to its

evacuation in advance of Sherman’s March to the Sea Campaign. After the camp fell into disuse,

its exact location was lost until archaeological investigations found the site in Magnolia Springs

State Park and the Bo Ginn National Fish Hatchery. These ongoing investigations have revealed a

wealth of information about the lives of the prisoners and the guards who were stationed there.

As the excavations proceed, more information about the lives of the prisoners and their story will

be forthcoming.

Reconstruction and the Early Twentieth Century The Civil War devastated Georgia’s social and economic structures. Slave emancipation changed

the face of agriculture as wage labor, and then sharecropping and share-renting, became the

dominant forms of agricultural labor organization. Railroads were rebuilt, but slowly, and the

depression of the 1870s further slowed economic redevelopment. In the 1890s, cotton mills

and their attendant workers’ villages began to assume the dominant role in Georgia’s industrial

development, a position they held until 1940. Urban centers also rebuilt. Savannah became known

for naval stores, sugar, and paper; Columbus for its clay works and textile mills; and Atlanta for

financial services and an increasingly diversified economic base. Archaeological excavations have

taken place at a wide variety of Reconstruction-era sites, including both operator and cropper/

renter houses, rural mills, and urban centers such as Augusta and Columbus.

The movement of rural families to the urban centers was a defining feature of the early 20th

century in Georgia, particularly after the boll weevil decimated cotton fields beginning in 1915.

Georgia became a major supplier of war materiel with the advent of World War I, leading to

significant industrial growth, particularly in cities like Atlanta, Augusta, and Savannah. The war

also led to the establishment of Georgia’s many military installations, such as Fort Benning in

The Andersonville National Historic Site (Top), a Confederate POW camp built in 1864, is the final resting place of thousands of American soldiers. In 1998, a POW museum (Bottom) was constructed at the site.

71

Columbus and Camp Gordon outside Atlanta. World War II further suppressed cotton farming, as exports nearly

ceased and availability of field labor diminished further. The New Deal programs of the 1930s and early 1940s led to

increased food crop production as well as the implementation of land-use practices intended to conserve resources,

such as contouring. Early 20th-century site types that have been investigated in Georgia include rural domestic sites,

military posts, and industrial sites in the larger cities.

Conclusion

While archaeological resources may not be as well documented or represented in NRHP listings as historic resources,

that does not mean they are any less important in telling the history of Georgia. From precontact periods including

Paleoindian, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississipian to historic periods including Early European, American Revolution,

Civil War, and Reconstruction, each period, and the related archaeological resources, tells a portion of the, at least,

12,000 year old history of our state. Through careful excavation, analysis, and reporting, archaeologists have been

able to build an intricate story of Georgia’s past.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Historic Properties in Georgia

The number, type, and distribution of Georgia’s historic properties is continually changing. Between development,

expanding professional knowledge, updated guidelines and precedence, and newly identified property types, the

number of resources can expand and contract on any given day. Unfortunately, this fluctuation is not something

that can be easily quantified, but understanding the reasoning behind these changes helps to plan for continued

fluctuations.

How Many Historic Properties Are in Georgia?

There is no way to establish an accurate count of historic resources in Georgia at any given time. However, the

number of resources documented to date can aid in estimating a total. More than 107,200 historic buildings have

been recorded through computerized field surveys, while another 50,000 or so are recorded in older paper-based

surveys. Newly surveyed buildings are currently being added to the inventory at the rate of about 3,000 per year.

Additionally, no one knows how many archaeological sites exist in Georgia. Since they are mostly underground,

or under water, sites are difficult to locate without expert field investigation. As with historic resources, a good

indicator are the sites that have been documented to date. At the present time, more than 58,000 archaeological

73

sites have been identified and recorded in UGA’s Archaeological Sites File. However, only a very small percentage of

the state’s land area has been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites. Newly discovered archaeological sites

are typically reported at the rate of nearly 2,000 per year, although with economic fluctuations, some periods see

more or less archaeological investigation.

Why Do the Numbers of Historic Properties Change?

The numbers of known and predicted historic properties in Georgia change constantly, with good reason. On the

one hand, known historic properties are lost or irreparably altered daily. A historic building may burn to the ground

or an archaeological site may be bulldozed. Each year nearly 1,000 historic buildings are lost statewide. On the other

hand, with the passage of time, properties previously not old enough to be considered historic reach 50 years of

age, thereby being considered historic, and the expanding scope of history and archaeology encompass properties

not previously recognized as historic. In addition, ongoing field surveys identify more historic properties every year.

Why Are More Historic Properties Identified?

The process of identifying and evaluating historic properties lies at the very heart of

historic preservation, which by its nature, is a continuing process. Just as time marches

on, so does history, and historic preservation with it.

The study of history and the science of archaeology that underlie historic preservation

are dynamic and constantly expanding. For example, historians are now studying what is

called the “recent past” – the period from World War II through the 1960s and beyond –

while archaeologists are pushing back the dates of human occupation in Georgia beyond

12,000 years. Architectural historians are analyzing the distinctive characteristics of mid-20th-century ranch houses

and split levels, now recognized as the hallmark houses of their period, as well as Modern or International Style-

public buildings – the state’s newest historic community landmark buildings. Historians continue to expand on the

Mid-20th-century neighborhoods can contain a wide variety of historic resources, including ranch houses, split levels, split foyers, and two-story traditional houses.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Advocacy, education, join preservation organizations such as Atlanta Preservation Center, Atlanta History Center.”

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

74

achievements of Georgia’s women and African Americans, while archaeologists and ethnologists are documenting

previously overlooked traditional cultural places associated with Native Americans.

Furthermore, an expanding historic preservation constituency is bringing with it a comprehensive view of historic

properties. For example, increased participation by African Americans has encouraged the broader recognition of

African American historic properties from the earliest days of exploration and settlement to the mid-20th-century

Civil Rights Movement. Heightened interest by Native Americans has led to increased sensitivity to many types of

prehistoric sites, particularly burials. The role played by women in Georgia’s history has continued to be an important

factor in preserving associated historic properties. Ongoing support for the state’s Centennial Farm program has

re-kindled interest in the history of Georgia’s farms and sites associated with the Civil War are of heightened interest

due to the sesquicentennial of that event within the last few years.

How Many Historic Properties Have Been Lost?

The majority of historic buildings that once existed in Georgia have already been lost. In just the last half-century,

nearly 90 percent of the 810,000 buildings that existed in the state prior to World War II have been lost through

destruction or drastic alterations. In some counties, in just the past 40 years, more than a third of the buildings

included in the state’s first historic resources surveys, completed in the mid-1970s, are gone. Losses include vernacular

buildings of all kinds; modest and high-style houses all across the state; farmhouses, including large plantation

houses and smaller tenant houses; entire lower- or working-class neighborhoods; many utilitarian agricultural and

industrial buildings and structures; commercial buildings on the outskirts of traditional downtowns and in small

rural communities, as well as in downtowns and urban neighborhoods that are redeveloping; and many resources

associated with African Americans.

Rural areas have been especially hard-hit, resulting in a skewed impression of Georgia’s historic environment today.

Historically, Georgia was a predominantly rural state. As late as 1940, nearly two-thirds of the state’s buildings and

structures were classified as rural, but today, nearly two-thirds of the properties identified in historic resources field

surveys are located in towns and cities.

A recent trend in the loss of historic buildings involves houses built between

1910 through the 1960s in urban and suburban neighborhoods that are being

substantially altered to accommodate contemporary lifestyles or demolished

and replaced with new, larger houses. In one Georgia suburban county alone, the

number of mid-20th-century houses being lost each year is equivalent to an entire

medium-sized neighborhood subdivision. Another recent trend in communities of

all sizes involves the replacement or remodeling of mid-20th-century commercial

and community landmark buildings in a faux-historic style. These trends are not

limited to mid-20th century or vernacular resources – replacement and remodeling

of high-style resources from all eras, seemingly with the express goal of building

new, are increasingly common trends, particularly in the Atlanta metropolitan area.

No one knows how many archaeological sites have been destroyed over the decades,

but every time ground-disturbing activity takes place, there is the potential for

additional loss. Artifacts are destroyed, physical relationships among archaeological

Located in Macon, Bibb County, the William and Jane Levitt House is an architect-designed ranch house with Contemporary styling of the Modern Movement that was retained in its recent rehabilitation.

75

features are lost, and therefore the potential of the site to yield useful information about our past is gone. It is likely

that more archaeological sites are destroyed each year than the number of newly identified sites added to the

statewide inventory in the same time period.

What’s on the Horizon in Terms of “New” Historic Properties?

During the next few years, buildings and structures dating from the post-World War II “Sun Belt” building boom

will continue to command attention. Chief among them will be houses and subdivisions; community landmark

buildings including schools, churches, and banks; high-style and vernacular commercial buildings and storefronts;

neighborhood and regional shopping centers; engineered industrial buildings; parking decks; and mid-20th-

century college campus buildings. Most numerous will be houses, as new variants of mid-20th-century types, such

as split foyers and two-story houses, continue to join the ranks of the well-documented ranch house and split-level

house as “historic.” Other forms, such as shed and A-frame types, will need to be evaluated, while the mobile home

is a topic of ongoing study, as statewide historic resources survey identifies additional numbers of both individual

and grouped examples that are 50 years or age or older.

Buildings designed in the mid-20th-century Modern Movement, including International, New Formalism, Brutalism,

Mansard, Contemporary, and Organic-styles of architecture, will continue to draw attention as more become 50

years old. First appearing in Georgia in the early 1930s, the Modern Movement in architecture took hold in the

1940s and became pronounced across the state in the 1950s. It is most evident in community landmark buildings

such as schools, post offices, libraries, public health facilities, city halls, and courthouses. Other common examples

of mid-20th-century buildings designed as part of the Modern Movement are commercial buildings, such as banks.

A unique architectural phenomenon is the mid-20th-century updating of older commercial buildings in traditional

central business districts with new, “modern” facades. In a similar mode, mid-20th-century additions to older

factories, as well as a few new highly engineered industrial buildings, reflect the last major era of the textile industry

in Georgia. A 2011 report on these additions entitled, Adapting to Survive: A Historic Context for Georgia’s Textile Mills

following World War II, has enabled further understanding of how these mills changed in the mid-20th century.

However, there is still extensive research to be done to establish a framework for identifying and categorizing mid-

20th-century commercial resources, particularly vernacular examples.

(Left) Decatur High School in DeKalb County was designed by Georgia architects Eugene Bothwell and Richard Nash. The New Formalist style of the 1965 building, while rare in Georgia, is the style of building that will continue to be surveyed and recorded as historic. (Right) The Shirley Hills National Register District, in Macon, is an example of a mid-century suburban landscape.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

76

New types of resources not extensively studied previously will also need to be assessed. Parking structures,

including parking garages and even parking lots, are a good example. The 2013 Downtown Atlanta: Contemporary

Historic Resources Survey found that 108 acres – nearly 19 percent of downtown Atlanta land – is now devoted to

parking. Given this statistic alone, it is hard not to argue that the seemingly insatiable need for additional parking

in Georgia’s cities and medium-sized towns during the mid-20th century did not have a significant impact on the

built environment. As increasing numbers of these resources reach 50 years of age, how to assess their integrity

and significance as historic resources, both individually and as part of the broader landscape that they impacted,

will need to be addressed. Difficult social and psychological perceptions attached to such resources, as well as

urban renewal projects and resources associated with the Civil Rights Movement, will complicate interpretations

and analysis.

With widespread renewed consideration and knowledge of TCPs and with NPS’ 2012 public

conversation aimed at producing improved guidance on identifying, evaluating, and

documenting places of cultural significance, the recognition and documentation of TCPs will

contribute to an increase of nominations for these types of properties to the NRHP. There is

a similar statewide interest in the topic, leading to updating existing NRHP-listed properties,

such as New Echota near Calhoun in Gordon County, and Georgia’s cultural diversity affords a

broad opportunity for HPD to build on this experience with further nominations to the GRHP

and NRHP.

From a broader geographical point of view, three kinds of large-scale cultural landscapes will

require additional study – suburban landscapes, pine-tree plantations, and maritime cultural

landscapes. These resource types will add to the body of historic properties as they are documented. The emerging

“historic” suburban landscape consists largely of contiguous residential subdivisions with mid-20th-century

landscaping and street layouts that comprise the majority of suburbs around larger Georgia communities. Within

that residential landscape are shopping centers, office parks, industrial parks, and recreational parks as part of the

overall landscape. While some of the components of the suburban landscape are already being studied, the larger

suburban environment of which they are a part is a focus for research, evaluation, and planning in the future. In

rural areas, attention is directed toward a better understanding of the historical significance of silviculture – in

particular, pine-tree plantations, which in many parts of the state have replaced traditional agriculture as a primary

land use. While trees have been grown commercially for years, it has only been since the 1930s that scientific and

commercial forestry has been practiced on a large scale, and only recently have these managed forested lands been

looked at from a historical perspective. Fundamental questions will have to be addressed, such as the historical

significance of silviculture and the significance of establishing and maintaining pine-tree plantations on land that

was formerly farmed in more traditional ways. The maritime cultural landscape consists of a unique property lying at

the intersection of the land and sea that reflects the dynamic relationship between man and water. This emerging

cultural landscape comprises both submerged and terrestrial sites along the Georgia shoreline, within the marshes

and estuaries, and along the network of inland waterways. With the added threat of climate change, rising sea

levels, and aggressive shoreline erosion, many of Georgia’s coastal resources from historic and precontact periods

are slowly eroding. Studies, in collaboration with federal and state agencies, will help us better understand Georgia’s

maritime landscape and learn how to best protect our coastal resources from threats.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?“Continue my mission - Protecting, Preserving and Interpreting the history of Camp McDonald Park in the heart of downtown Kennesaw, Georgia”

77

By 2020, another 10,000 archaeological sites will have most likely been documented. New kinds of archaeological

sites will be investigated and these, as well as previously identified sites, will be examined using new techniques

and in light of new information. Heightened awareness of traditional cultural knowledge will continue to benefit

cooperative ventures involving archaeological sites associated with Native Americans and African Americans. The

modern archaeological record will aid in critically examining World War II-era sites based upon current historical

documentation and first-person accounts of wartime preparedness, while landfills may provide critical physical

evidence of 20th-century material culture and associated lifestyles. On a broader scale, archaeological information

derived from pollen, soils, animal bones, and other sources will inform environmental scientists on the scope and

kind of changes to the natural and human environments that occurred hundreds and thousands of years ago and

that may affect us in the future. New technologies such as photogrammetry and 3-D printing will aid in artifact

analysis and will open the door for new and creative ways to engage the public in interpretive efforts.

Conclusion

During the life of this plan, the number of potential historic properties may increase as never before. The closest

analogy would be the way that early 20th-century bungalows dramatically swelled the numbers of “new” historic

buildings in the 1980s. The decades of the 1960s and 1970s have the potential to double the number of historic

buildings and structures that historic preservation must address. Of course, many historic properties will also be

lost during the life of this plan. Innovative ways of dealing with new resources and guarding against persistent

development and other pressures must be developed – along with plain old hard work – if historic preservation is

to successfully accommodate these fluctuations while providing for the opportunity to preserve and use historic

properties in Georgia.

Section III: The Planning Process

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Developing the Plan

An effective historic preservation plan must do many things. It must represent views of those who will implement

it and those who will be affected by its implementation. It must consolidate the myriad of issues confronting

preservation and anticipate how they will evolve in the future. The plan should focus on the highest priorities,

effectively addressing threats to historic properties, yet it must also be practical and present visions and goals that

reach beyond the present practices and ways of thinking.

Creation of a preservation plan is just one part of a larger, ongoing planning process. The teamwork of HPD staff, with

the assistance and input of other Georgia preservationists, is the foundation of the process, as well as the strength

and force behind the continuing evolution of Georgia’s preservation goals and activities. The implementation and

success of a statewide plan is impossible unless those in the state’s preservation community share these common

goals and objectives.

This plan was developed as the successor to Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan, 2012-2016: Partnering for

Preservation, published in 2012. The preparation and implementation of a statewide comprehensive plan for historic

preservation provides HPD, the preservation community, and other stakeholders in Georgia with the opportunity to

consider a wide range of strategies to identify, evaluate, and protect Georgia’s irreplaceable historic properties. It is

also required by NPS for the participation of a SHPO in the national historic preservation program. In Georgia, HPD,

a division of the GDNR, administers the SHPO programs.

81

Public Participation

Initiation The planning process began in 2015 when HPD management staff met to discuss strategies for effective staff and

public input for an updated preservation plan. The importance of gathering public input and incorporating it into

the development of the plan update was emphasized. The public participation strategy included a widely circulated

online survey and multiple public comment periods regarding different components of the preservation plan. In

addition, any presentation, conference, or training attended by HPD staff during the planning period included

information on how to participate in the update process, such as HPC training in Thomasville on November 5, 2015,

and ARC’s Land Use Coordinating Committee meeting, which brings together planners for cities and counties in the

Atlanta region, on August 27, 2015 (the presentation was subsequently posted on ARC’s website).

Survey Questionnaire Results In an effort to obtain input from as many people as possible, HPD prepared a 10-question

survey and posted it on its website for a six-month period, from July 2015 to December

2015. HPD publicized the survey through our digital newsletter, which has over 4,000

subscribers (June 16, 2015 and November 13, 2015); our regional planner and CLG listservs;

our Facebook page (June 16, 2015 and November 3, 2015), with over 30 “likes” and 25

“shares;” the Georgia Tribal Council; GDNR weekly update; a public notice sent to the press

listserv; and the fall 2015 Georgia Review Board.

The survey was publicized by the regional preservation planners through presentations,

newsletters, and local government and board member listservs; university listservs, such

as UGA (alumni and client listservs), Kennesaw State University (KSU), GA State (historic

preservation listserv, July 1, 2015 and November 1, 2015), and Savannah College of Art

and Design (SCAD); GDCA/Main Street through social media (twice), newsletter (June 30,

2015), and four presentations at statewide meetings and Main Street manager meetings

(September 17 and 24, 2015 and October 1 and 6, 2015); non-profits, such as GTHP’s

newsletter (June 18, 2015) and social media, Athens-Clarke County Heritage and Historic

Macon presentations and social media; GEMC magazine (August 2015 issue), and SGA.

The success of the efforts to publicize the survey were clear, as over 400 surveys were

completed. When asked how participants heard of the survey, respondents cited school

listservs, word of mouth, social media, email, press release, HPCs, city councils, Main Street,

Georgia Genealogy Network, GEMC Magazine (along with sub-EMC publications), local

newspapers, regional publications (such as Curbed Atlanta and Creative Loafing), and local

stations (including websites, radio, and news broadcasts).

Georgians who completed the survey reflect a variety of positions and interests in historic

preservation, as evidenced by the responses to Question 1: Which of the following

categories best describes your role in historic preservation? The three main respondent

groups consisted of interested parties (16 percent), local government officials (11.4

percent), and non-profit historical societies or preservation organizations (10.7 percent).

Other roles and interests represented include respondents from regional commissions,

HPD encouraged public input in developing the State Historic Preservation Plan in a number of ways, including announcing a survey during any HPD presentation (Top) and advertising it through HPD newsletters and social media pages (Bottom).

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

82

federal or state government, archaeological organizations, real estate development companies, Main Street or

downtown organizations, preservation or archaeology professionals or consultants, owners of historic properties,

heritage tourism affiliates, local historical societies or preservation commissions, educators, architects, students, and

volunteers.

All regions in Georgia were represented in the survey, as noted in the responses to Question 2: In what region

of Georgia do you live? However, the majority of respondents were from Metro Atlanta (38.7 percent) and North

Georgia (16 percent), while Central Georgia and South Georgia followed closely with 13.5 percent and 11.1 percent,

respectively. Percentages of responses dropped considerably for the remaining three regions (West, East, and Coast).

Although this may reflect the fact that half of Georgia’s population lives in the Atlanta Metro Area, it may also indicate

the need to develop more effective methods of communicating the preservation message to the rest of the state.

The following lists the remaining eight survey questions and summarizes responses:

Which preservation activities should the Historic Preservation Division give priority to during the next five

years to protect historic and archaeological resources?

The question listed 20 preservation activities that could be rated as not important, somewhat important,

important, or extremely important. The three preservation activities that received the highest average ratings

were:

1. Partnering with local organizations to preserve and enhance historic downtowns and rural

communities;

2. Federal and state tax incentives for historic preservation projects; and

3. Funding programs (CLG grants, etc.).

Other activities that received a high average rating included:

1. Promoting the preservation of local landmark buildings such as courthouses and city halls;

2. Strengthening Georgia’s preservation network and developing new preservation partners;

3. Surveying to identify historic buildings and structures;

4. Assisting local preservation commissions;

5. Coordinating efforts with state, regional, and local planning agencies;

6. Promoting the preservation of archaeological sites;

7. Nominating properties to the Georgia and NRHP;

8. Historic preservation training and workshops and other preservation educational activities;

9. Review of state and federal projects for impact on historic and archaeological resources; and

10. Cemetery preservation.

The question also allowed for respondents to include additional activities. Other responses included

preservation of African American historic resources and resources in underrepresented communities,

heritage tourism, online database for National Register properties, preservation of Confederate monuments

and memorials, outreach, and preservation of Revolutionary War sites.

The announcement inviting the public to take the survey, with a web address included.

83

Which historic resources in your area do you consider the most important to preserve?

The question listed 17 historic resource types that could be rated as not important, somewhat important,

important, or extremely important. The resource type with the highest average rating was Main Street/

Downtowns, followed by: houses, cemeteries, historic landscapes, public buildings (courthouses, city halls,

and schools), civic/public spaces, African American resources, and residential neighborhoods. The question

also allowed for respondents to include additional resources. Other responses included Confederate,

recreational, Native American, art, traditional crafts, vernacular architecture, jails, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

and Transgender), gold mining, depots, courthouses, and theaters.

Which programs of the Historic Preservation Division are you most interested in?

The question listed 15 programs in which individuals could rate or rank their level of interest as either not

interested, somewhat interested, interested, or extremely interested. The three programs that received the

highest average rating were:

1. Historic preservation planning;

2. Grants for rehabilitating historic buildings; and

3. Tax incentives for rehabilitating historic buildings.

Other programs that received a high average rating included:

1. Georgia and NRHP;

2. Architectural technical assistance in rehabilitating historic buildings;

3. Protecting historic and archaeological properties with state and federal environmental review laws; and

4. Technical assistance for local and community preservation planning.

Respondents also suggested programs geared toward students, regional preservation planning, Native

Americans, endangered properties, and outreach.

What do you consider to be the most effective methods that the Historic Preservation Division can use for

providing historic preservation information to the public?

The question listed 16 methods that could be rated as not effective, somewhat effective, effective, or

extremely effective. The methods that received the highest average ratings were:

1. Ready access to HPD staff by telephone or email;

2. Website;

3. Public outreach events; and

4. On-site staff assistance.

Other effective methods noted with a high-average rating included training workshops, tours, volunteer

opportunities, and exhibits. It is interesting to note that social media ranked 9th in average ratings (up from

13th in the last statewide plan), indicating that as a relatively new form of communication, it is beginning to

be perceived as an effective method. Our office sees this option as becoming even more prevalent during

the life of this plan, and other yet to be discovered ways of communicating will, in all probability, emerge.

Respondents also added regional preservation planners and digitization.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

84

How did you learn about this survey?

This question was quite revealing, as noted above – 59.6 percent of respondents learned about the survey

through HPD’s e-mail newsletter, while 16.7 percent learned about the survey through our website or through

Facebook. Only 1.2 percent heard about the survey through a public meeting, and 6.5 percent in other ways,

including university listservs, word of mouth, local preservation commissions, friends, Twitter, local officials, and

various other publications.

The survey also included three open-ended questions intended to elicit a more personal response. It was very

revealing that almost all of the surveys included detailed answers to these questions. An analysis points to some

important themes.

Why is the preservation of Georgia’s heritage important to you?

The first open-ended question asked why preservation of Georgia’s heritage is important to the respondent.

Among the main themes expressed were:

1. Pride in Georgia’s/personal history;

2. Education, tangible links to history and place;

3. Legacy for future generations;

4. Sense of place, continuity with the past;

5. Non-renewable resources that will be lost forever if not preserved;

6. Economic benefits;

7. Uniqueness, community value;

8. Document the diversity of history; and

9. Sustainability.

The responses overwhelmingly address an emotional connection. Although the economic benefits and

sustainability of preservation were certainly brought up, intangible reasons such as pride in our state’s and

family history, education, passing information onto children and grandchildren, sense of place, identity, and

quality of life predominated in the responses to this question. A new idea expressed in responses identified the

need to preserve our diverse history, including African American, Native American, and LGBT, to name a few.

What do you consider to be the most important preservation issues facing Georgia now and in the next five

years?

This was the second open-ended question in the survey. As with the previous question, an analysis points to

some important themes. Among the main themes expressed were:

1. Resource-specific issues;

2. Balancing development and preservation;

3. Funding;

4. Education;

5. Involvement/support/interest;

6. Training;

7. Demolition by neglect;

8. Sustainability; and

9. Involving youth.

85

Not surprisingly these themes evidence the current trends in history in general and aspects portrayed in the

media. For example, many of the resource-specific issues focused on Confederate memorials and emblems

due to recent race-based shootings examined in the media that resulted in the removal and potential

removal of these memorials in many places across the country. Additionally, with nationwide discussions

regarding diversity in preservation, survey respondents also noted the need to protect our diverse history,

including that of African Americans, Native Americans, and women, as noted above in the previous open-

ended question. Other resources specifically identified included main streets and downtowns, cemeteries,

archaeological sites of all eras, neighborhoods, landscapes, and mid-20th-century resources.

With the economy currently beginning to rebound and construction on the rise, balancing development and

preservation was a common theme also seen in responses to this question. In regards to funding issues found

in preservation, the responses often focused on tax incentives, which is indicative of the recent legislation

passed in Georgia to expand the tax incentive program. Involvement ran the gamut of entities that could be

concerned – from local governments and commissions to state politicians and the general public. Overall,

themes found in the past five years continued through the more recent five years, and appear to endure in

the upcoming five years.

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?

The third open-ended question in the survey specifically asked what a respondent could do to promote or

advance preservation. As with all other open-ended questions, an analysis points to main themes. Among the

main themes expressed where:

1. Volunteering or being involved;

2. Advocating or promoting;

3. Continuing current efforts;

4. Educating;

5. Lobbying;

6. Awareness; and

7. Raising funds.

In regards to advocating or promoting, a reoccurring theme centered on social media such as Facebook and

Instagram. Considering the need to involve youth in the preservation movement, social media will only grow

in importance as a means of advancing preservation in Georgia. Most respondents emphasized carrying

on with work they are already doing to promote and accomplish preservation projects, such as continuing

to serve as historic preservation commission members, Main Street directors, owners of historic properties,

state or federal employees, educators, students, and consultants. Awareness revolved around a two-fold

approach, both self-awareness and making others, including government officials, friends, family members,

communities, and neighborhoods, aware of all aspects of preservation such as benefits, standards, important

resources, and funding options. Answers to this question indicate that there is a motivated constituency for

preservation in Georgia that is already working towards preservation goals and is willing to do more.

Public Comments on Draft Goals, Objectives, and StrategiesA draft set of goals was created by HPD utilizing the responses from the survey and posted prominently on our

website for a one-month public comment period. The call for public comment was announced June 6, 2016 and

again publicized by HPD through our digital newsletter (June 8, 2016); our regional planner and CLG listservs; our

Facebook page (June 7, 2016), with over 20 “likes” and 25 “shares;” GDNR weekly update, and a HPC presentation on

June 7, 2016.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

86

The survey was made known by the regional preservation planners through newsletters, websites, and local

government and board member listservs; university listservs, such as UGA, KSU, GA State (historic preservation

listserv, June 7, 2016), and SCAD; GDCA/Main Street through social media (twice) and newsletter (June 14, 2016);

non-profits, such as the GTHP’s newsletter (June 9, 2016); SGA through social media (June 7, 2016), and on the

website of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia.

Ten responses were received with four explicitly applauding our efforts within the state and the goals that outline

the path forward. Deficiencies were noted in support and training for local and regional preservation organizations,

updating existing surveys, the statewide preservation conference, Native American and African American

preservation, social media, landscapes, and oral history. HPD found the drafted goals provided coverage for the

deficiencies noted, while recognizing that coverage may be from a broader perspective. Here is where HPD finds

the goals cover the noted deficiencies:

1. Support and training for local and regional preservation organizations...........1.B.5 and 2.A (all)

2. Updating existing surveys...............................................................................................................1.A.5 and 1.C.3

3. Statewide preservation conference..........................................................................................2.A.1

4. Native American preservation......................................................................................................1.A.4, 2.A.2, and 2.A.3

5. African American preservation.....................................................................................................2.A.1 and 2.A.3

6. Social media.............................................................................................................................................1.A.2 and 1.B.3

7. Landscapes...............................................................................................................................................1.A.1, 1.A.5, and 1.C.3

8. Oral history................................................................................................................................................1.A.2 and 2.A.3

Preservation training for HPD’s constituents will continue to be an integral part of protecting the state’s historic resources.

87

Public Comments on Draft Plan After the draft goals were finalized to incorporate the public comments as noted above, HPD drafted the preservation

plan itself, which built on previous plans, new trends, and current landscape. This draft plan was posted prominently

on our website for a one-month public comment period. The call for public comment was announced September

29, 2016 and again publicized by HPD through our digital newsletter (September 30, 2016); our regional planner and

CLG listservs (October 12, 2016); and our Facebook page (September 29, 2016), with over 14 “likes” and 11 “shares.”

The survey was publicized by the regional preservation planners through newsletters, websites, and local

government and board member listservs; university listservs, such as UGA (October 4, 2016), KSU, GA State (historic

preservation listserv, October 4, 2016), and SCAD; GDCA/Main Street through social media (October 30, 2016) and

newsletter (October 4, 2016); and non-profits, such as the GTHP’s newsletter (October 20, 2016).

Three responses were received from the public on the draft plan. The comments addressed archaeological

achievements, identification of traditional cultural places, preservation law, and the treatment of state-owned

historic sites. In response, an achievement was added to the archaeology section to recognize additional noteworthy

completed archaeology projects; the narrative regarding traditional cultural places was expanded to acknowledge

recent efforts to develop improved guidance for identification, evaluation, and documentation throughout the

plan; action items were added to recognize preservation law as a component of HPC training (Strategy I.B.3); and an

accomplishment and other narrative were added regarding recent HPD involvement in encouraging the appropriate

treatment and planning for GDNR historic properties, which is also addressed in Strategy 1.B.5. Aspects of the

comments regarding technical assistance or legal counsel about preservation law and management of historic sites

are not included in the plan as they are outside the role and capacity assigned to Georgia SHPO as a state agency.

HPD Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Sarah Love teaches young children about the value of historic resources as part of an event hosted by Panola Mountain State Park.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

88

Conclusion

Georgians have a strong sense and feel for why preservation is important to them and have definite opinions on

what needs to be done to protect the state’s heritage. The public input process has provided valuable ideas that

have been incorporated into the goals, objectives, and strategies of the current state plan and the plan itself. This

input and incorporation involved a careful consideration of the main issues and results of both the public survey

and public comment periods. Citizens believe that preservation is important and it is up to all of us to be better

stewards of the state’s resources and for federal, state, and local officials to be more accountable to constituents. It is

evident that we need to find more effective ways to spread the message to new and younger preservationists and

to provide preservation training to a wide base of constituents, including public and elected officials, professionals,

and students. It is also clear that our preservation stakeholders understand how preservation is relevant to the

larger issues of quality of life, economic development, and sustainability and that they want HPD’s core preservation

programs to reflect this wider context.

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021: Integrating Innovation with Preservation builds upon the

accomplishments of its predecessor. Its guiding principle is the protection of all of Georgia’s historic properties,

from archaeological sites to structures, houses, buildings, objects, landscapes, and traditional cultural places

that encompass our built environment, through enhanced partnerships and integrating innovations. The plan

acknowledges the importance of a vision where all of Georgia’s citizens are committed to the preservation of our

shared heritage.

HPD has adopted this plan as a statement of policy direction and as a commitment to action for the protection

and use of Georgia’s valuable historic properties. Because it represents the views and priorities of preservationists

throughout Georgia who participated in its development, Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021:

Integrating Innovation with Preservation can provide common direction for all organizations and individuals who

support the preservation of our historic places. The plan evidences that the foundations of a strong preservation

ethic continue to be present in Georgia and that working together to realize the goals and objectives outlined in

this plan will bring us closer to realizing our vision of making Georgia a better place to live, work, learn, and play.

89

What can you do to advance historic preservation in Georgia?

◆ Share news via social media

◆ Be active in my community

◆ Educate the younger generations about the value of historic buildings, cemeteries, etc.

◆ I can spread the word and articulate my passion for historic spaces. I can educate others on incentives to

reuse rather than destroy.

◆ Educate, participate, and advocate

◆ Advocate, watch legislation, preserve my own home and neighborhood locally

◆ Support local, state, and federal preservation efforts

◆ Be aware of the programs that help local governments and businesses preserve and re-use historic

buildings. Promote these programs on behalf of SHPO.

◆ Continue to publicly speak out for benefits of historic preservation within communities

◆ Read, inform, learn, advocate the importance of our heritage

◆ Vote for funding and get the word out to others how important this is to future generations

◆ I would like to be able to use my voice or vote to strengthen laws within the state to protect structures

which have been determined as historically significant from being razed in the name of progress,

especially by those who replace individual properties with mixed-use or multi-family developments.

◆ Continue to renew/purchase a historic preservation license tag. Communicate

the basic purpose of historic preservation.

◆ I can advance historic preservation in Georgia by focusing my efforts on

preserving and revitalizing African American historic communities and making

them a vibrant and functional areas.

◆ Write and administer grants for local agencies and non-profits

◆ Use Instagram a lot to document the various buildings I come across on a daily

basis. I think Instagram is a highly visual and alluring medium to show people the

importance of preserving our built heritage in Georgia.

◆ Support the work of HPD by keeping elected officials aware of the goals, objectives,

and needs of historic preservation in Georgia

◆ Advocate for why historic places matter and encourage rehabilitation, renovation, and redevelopment of

properties

◆ Stay informed and do what I can to advance education about cultural resources and historic properties

◆ Keep the subject in front of our city council

◆ Stronger protection; better education

◆ Try and do all that you can to empower local preservation commissions. They are the only ones able to

actually prevent demolition through the protection offered with local ordinances.

◆ Continue to post on Facebook photos and articles about the history of our county and encourage others

to save and/or donate to our local historical society

◆ Financial support and volunteer activities in my community

◆ Continue to educate everyone about the benefits of historic preservation

◆ Help to better convey the discoveries of…archaeology to the general public to improve awareness of the

significant information potential of Georgia’s archaeological resources

◆ Provide access to technical resources and funding information for property owners

Supporting Georgia’s historic preservation license plate is one way to promote historic preservation efforts in the state.

Selected Survey Responses

References Consulted

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Sustainability and Historic Preservation. April 23, 2014. http://

www.achp.gov/sustainability.html (accessed July 10, 2016).

Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area. Arabia Mountain National Heritage Alliance, n.d. http://

arabiaalliance.org/ (accessed June 12, 2016).

Brown, Barry and Gordon R. Elwell. Crossroads of Conflict: A Guide to Civil War Sites in Georgia. Georgia

Civil War Commission and the University of Georgia Press, 2010.

Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia. Regional Important Resources Plan. 2012. http://www.crc.

ga.gov/publications/planning/2012%20RIRP%20with%20weblinks.pdf (accessed, May 15, 2016).

Coastal Regional Commission of Georgia. The Regional Plan of Coastal Georgia. January 11, 2012.

http://www.crc.ga.gov/publications/planning/2011_Regional_Agenda _Update_KS_122711.pdf

(accessed May 10, 2016).

Executive Office of the President. The President’s Climate Action Plan. June 2013. https://www.

whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (accessed July 13,

2016).

Georgia Association of Zoning Administrators, n.d. http://www.georgiazoning.org/ (accessed May 10,

2016).

Georgia Department of Economic Development. The Economic Impact of Tourism in Georgia. 2014.

http://www.marketgeorgia.org/master/files/resources/519/16TOUR012176 _THAD%20Booklet_

FINAL%20(2).pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).

Georgia Department of Economic Development Tourism Product Development Resource Team Program.

July 2016. http://www.marketgeorgia.org/master/files/resources/670/GDEcD%20Tourism%20

Product%20Development%20Resource%20Team%20-%20Program%20Information%202016.07.

pdf (accessed July 15, 2016).

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division. Heritage Tourism Handbook: A

How-To Guide for Georgia. March 2010.

Georgia Environmental and Finance Authority. GEFA 2015 Annual Report. n.d. http://gefa.georgia.gov/

sites/gefa.georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/GEFA-AR-2015.pdf (accessed May 10, 2016).

Georgia Forestry Commission. Georgia Forest Facts. n.d. http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/ resources/

publications/GeorgiaForestFacts.pdf (accessed May 21, 2016).

Georgia Land Conservation Program. Permanently Protecting Georgia’s Land Resources: Summary of

Conservation Activity in Georgia Under GLCP: 2006-2014. n.d. http://glcp.georgia.gov/sites/glcp.

georgia.gov/files/related_files/document/glcp-conservation-descriptions-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed

May 22, 2016).

93

Greer, Brian K., S. Dwight Kirkland, and Martin Healey. A Historical Context of the Turpentine (Naval Stores) Industry in the

Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plans of Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, 2013. http://denix.osd.mil/cr/lrmp/factsheets/

reports-and-other-products/a-historical-context-of-the-turpentine-naval-stores-industry-in-the-atlantic-and-gulf-

coastal-plains-of-georgia-south-carolina-and-florida-report-legacy-12-506/ (accessed November 11, 2016).

Jarvis, Jonathan B. Policy Memorandum 14-02: Climate Change and Stewardship of Cultural Resources. National Park Service.

February 10, 2014. https://www.nps.gov/preservation-planning/downloads/Director_Memo_onClimateChange_

and_Stewardship_of_CulturalResources.pdf (accessed May 4, 2016).

Jarvis, Jonathan B. Policy Memorandum 15-01: Addressing Climate Change and Natural Hazards for Facilities. National Park

Service. January 20, 2015. https://www.nps.gov/policy/PolMemos/PM_15-01.htm (accessed May 4, 2016).

Joseph, J.W., Theresa M. Hamby, and Catherine S. Long. Historical Archaeology in Georgia. University of Georgia

Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report 39. Athens, 2004.

National Park Service. A Call to Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement. August 25, 2011.

https://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/PDF/Directors _Call_to_Action_Report.pdf (accessed July 2, 2016).

National Trails System, Federal Interagency Council on Trails. National Trails System: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2012.

February 2013. https://www.nps.gov/nts/2012%2006MOU%20RPT%206%20AGO%20Version.pdf (accessed June

17, 2016).

National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Main Street Center. The Main Street Approach. n.d. http://www.

preservationnation.org/main-street/about-main-street/main-street-america/Four-Point-Language-10-19.pdf

(accessed July 13, 2016).

New Georgia Encyclopedia, The. www.georgiaencyclopedia.org (accessed July 1, 2016)

PlaceEconomcs. Good News in Tough Times: Historic Preservation and the Georgia Economy. Report prepared for Georgia

Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division. Sept. 2010.

Stoloff, Jennifer A. A Brief History of Public Housing. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. http://

reengageinc.org/research/brief_history_public_housing.pdf (accessed June 23, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Services. 1982 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1,

Geographic Area Series, Part 10, Georgia, State and County Data. July 1984. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/

AgCensusImages/1982/01/10/1982-01-10.pdf (accessed July 15, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Services. 1997 Census of Agriculture, Georgia, State

and County Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 10. March 1999. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/

AgCensusImages/1997/01/10/1997-01-10.pdf (accessed July 15, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Services. 2012 Census of Agriculture, State Profile, Georgia.

2012. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Georgia/cp99013.

pdf (accessed July 16, 2016).

Georgia’s State Historic Preservation Plan 2017-2021Integrating Innovation with Preservation

94

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Services. 2015 State Agriculture Overview, Georgia. 2015.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_ Overview/stateOverview.php?state=georgia (accessed July 16, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012 National Resources Inventory, Georgia

Developed Land. 2012. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS _RCA/reports/nri_dev_ga.html (accessed July 10,

2016).

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012 National Resources Inventory, Georgia Land

Use. 2012. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ NRCS_RCA/reports/nri_ga.html (accessed July 10, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service. Forests of Georgia, 2014. February 2016. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/

pubs/ru/ru_srs072.pdf? (accessed May 14, 2016).

US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Georgia’s Forests, 2014. June 2016. http://

www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/rb/rb_srs209.pdf (accessed May 14, 2016).

US Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Resources. An Assessment of Historic Properties and Preservation

Activities at the U.S. Department of Energy. 2014. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/11/f19/Executive%20

Order%20Report%202014%20%2820140929%29.pdf (accessed June 5, 2016).

US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, Statistical Report and Analysis for

Fiscal Year 2015: Report for Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. 2016. www.nps.gov/tps/tax-

incentives/taxdocs/tax-incentives-2015statistical.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2016).

US Census Bureau. Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) and Combined Statistical Areas (CSAs). February 2013. http://www.

census.gov/population/metro/data/def.html (accessed June 16, 2016).

US Census Bureau. Population Change for Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States and Puerto

Rico (February 2013 Delineations): 2000 to 2010. March 2013. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2010/

cph-t/cph-t-5.html (accessed June 16, 2016).

US Census Bureau. Principal Cities of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. February 2013. http://www.census.

gov/population/metro/data/def.html (accessed June 16, 2016).

US Census Bureau. Quick Facts, Georgia. 2010. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/ PST045215/13,00 (accessed

February 19, 2016).

Save America’s Treasures. Save America’s Treasures Awards 1999-2010, By State. n.d. http://www.pcah.gov/sites/default/

files/SAT%20Awards%201999-2010%20Table_2.pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).